Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — Environment

Compulsory Competitive Tendering

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what improvement in quality of service has been seen in councils since the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): Independent research by the university of Birmingham has shown that authorities' CCT contracts have ensured better monitoring and better delivery of services. Costs are on average 7 per cent. less than before, and up to 20 per cent. less for some services.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Is he aware that compulsory competitive tendering breaks up the cosy relationship between some local authorities and trade unions, particularly those local authorities that run direct services organisations? Is not that really why Labour Members are fearful of fair competition?

Mr. Baldry: If one wants evidence of that cosy relationship, one need look no further that this week's Municipal Journal. On one page, we discover that the GMB persuaded the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council to rethink its decision to award to outside contractors 19 contracts, which had been won fairly on competitive tender. If we want to know why that has happened, we have only to look on the opposite page, where we discover that the same union will be giving some £250,000 to help the Labour party to fight elections. That is the clearest possible example of a trade union buying influence. The Labour party is clearly in the pocket of the very union that does not want competitive tendering.

Mr. Henderson: I declare an interest, as a member of the GMB. Are not many thousands of GMB and other trade union members employed by local authorities on very low wages? Have not the cost savings made through CCT often been at the expense of the wages of those low-paid people and, on other occasions, resulted in the quality of services suffering?
Does the Minister recognise that the transfer of jobs from the public sector, where the Department of the Environment has responsibility, to contractors raises pensions questions? Will he confirm that contractors themselves have asked for clarification on that? Does he

accept that, when jobs are transferred from local authorities to contractors, any system that is fair should include the fair transfer of pension arrangements and that local authorities and contractors should be obliged to honour those arrangements?

Mr. Baldry: I notice that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges being sponsored by the GMB, but does not have the good grace to acknowledge that the GMB is seeking to persuade the Labour party, with a substantial contribution of funds, to go back on competitive tendering.
As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the effectiveness of competitive tendering, all the research shows that performance has been better monitored, productivity has been improved, staff are better managed and motivated and morale is higher as a consequence of CCT. That independent research has been carried out by the institute of local government management in the university of Birmingham, and Opposition Members do not like it, just as they do not like the advice on pensions given by Dr. Elias and others. We will, of course, look carefully at those points.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite what the Opposition have said, my local council, Waltham Forest, has consistently failed to make the extra effort over CCT? The council's direct services organisation was hugely in debt and failed to collect the outstanding bills, and that led to a reduced service for the public. Was not that directly as a result of a political decision by the council to drag its heels over the matter?

Mr. Baldry: All the evidence shows that competitive tendering brings substantial savings to local people and improves the quality of service. It is a sad reflection that far too many local authorities still resist introducing competitive tendering, often at the behest of the local trade unions. Local authorities must decide whose interests they serve—those of local people or those of local trade unionists.

Local Government (Fraud and Corruption)

Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further representations he has received concerning fraud and corruption in local government.

The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): From time to time, there are allegations about fraud and corruption which are pursued by the proper authorities. Fraud and corruption are always to be condemned.

Mr. Heppell: Will the Minister confirm the view that has already been expressed by the Government spokesperson in another place that John Magill, the district auditor in the Westminster homes for votes scandal, acted correctly and followed procedures to the letter? Will he join me and others in condemning Westminster Tories who are using the tragic death of Dr. Michael Dutt to try to discredit the district auditor's report?

Mr. Curry: The position is extremely clear and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know it. The auditor acted perfectly properly, but the conclusions that he has come to are preliminary conclusions, which have not been subject to any trial or adjudication by a court. Clearly,


there is a procedure that will decide whether those conclusions were well founded. At that point, people can form their judgment. It is wrong to do so before.

Mr. Bates: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey), speaking of Lambeth council, was reported in The Times on 23 January 1993 as saying:
the whole place is falling to bits with corruption"?

Mr. Curry: I know that the hon. Lady is an extremely assiduous Member for her constituency. She is clearly in a much better position to make judgments than the rest of us.

Mr. Betts: Is not it time that Ministers stopped condemning Labour authorities when only vague allegations have been made about their conduct, and addressed the real problems in authorities such as Westminster? Will the Minister tell us what his Department knew about the cash incentive scheme in Westminster? Was not that scheme approved by his Department? Were not the subsidies for that scheme paid by his Department? Was not the monitoring of the scheme carried out by his Department? Did not the Department undertake a comprehensive review of the scheme, which showed precisely what was happening? Is not it time that the Government came clean and not merely criticised what Westminster council did but owned up to their responsibility in that sordid matter?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman's introduction was revealing. He asked whether it was not time that we did not look at Labour councils. I say that we should look at all councils where there are allegations of corruption, no matter what political colour they are. We have a common interest in stopping corruption and sorting it out wherever it is found, irrespective of what council it is. We should create a clear distinction between allegations and what is found to be true. When allegations have been proven, we have a common interest in seeking probity in local government, irrespective of what council is involved.

Mrs. Angela Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that in addition to the allegations of corruption and fraud in Labour-controlled Monklands, Lambeth and Haringey, the ex-deputy leader of Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council is currently serving a prison sentence for defrauding the council by fiddling his expenses?

Mr. Curry: My understanding is that the gentleman has appealed against his sentence. He is alleged to be conducting council business from his cell in the mean time, and is receiving the allowances that go with those responsibilities. I should have thought that it might be slightly more prudent for those allowances to be held and paid if he is proved not guilty, rather than being paid during the period of his appeal.

Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that, on top of the systematic corruption and gerrymandering exposed in Westminster, there is a rising tide of reports of official corruption investigations in one Conservative district council after another, the latest being in South Oxfordshire, Hertsmere and Mid Bedfordshire? Is not it because the abuse of power by many sections of the Conservative party is so extensive that, in addition to what some Members of Parliament have said, the former Lord Chancellor and ostensible upholder of the rule of law, Lord Hailsham, issued a most disgraceful attack in another place on the

integrity and independence of the district auditor? Is not it the case that, in the eyes of some Conservatives, the independence of the judicial process ends where Conservative sleaze and corruption begin?

Mr. Curry: What the former Lord Chancellor said is perfectly clear. He said that many people were acting as if the auditor's report were proven fact and those people mentioned in it had been condemned in a court of law. He said that that was not the case and that the reports contained the preliminary findings, which have to be verified. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to swap councils across the Dispatch Box, then anyone can play that game. We have a common interest in ensuring that we have a system of local government that people respect and that is conducted on the basis of probity. If the hon. Gentleman wishes simply to drag us into a mud-slinging contest on that subject let him go for it because I am happy to sling with everyone else, but it will not do any good to the electorate, to local government or to those who aspire to public service.

Rent-to-mortgage Scheme

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what uptake he expects of the rent-to-mortgage scheme.

The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): The early response to the scheme has been encouraging, although it is as yet too early to say how many of the 1.5 million tenants who are eligible will take advantage of it.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his considered reply. Does not the success of the scheme depend on the level of interest shown in it? Had the Opposition parties been in power, what level of interest would there have been?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend rightly points out that the scheme is of interest to 1.5 million local authority tenants who would not have the choice that is now available to them had we listened to Opposition Members. I hope that all hon. Members will bring to the attention of their local authority tenants the potential of the rent-to-mortgage scheme, which will be of interest to the 1.5 million local authority tenants who are paying their rents in full.

Mr. Soley: Does the Minister remember just before the last general election accepting a mortgage-to-rent scheme that I proposed, at least in part? The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Minister, said that the scheme would save thousands of people from being repossessed and going into bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That was therefore a similar sort of scheme. Why did the Government say before the election that they would save thousands of those families, but fail to do anything afterwards?

Sir George Young: That is a good example of Opposition Back Benchers implying that the Labour party is committed to substantial public expenditure when they know perfectly well that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have distanced themselves from any such commitment.
The last figures were published in January and showed a welcome reduction in the number of repossessions and most forecasters agree that the figures will continue to fall.

Mr. Waterson: Is not the golden thread running through the rent-to-mortgage scheme, the right to buy council homes and leasehold enfranchisement that Conservative Members believe in people having control over their own lives? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that proposition has never been welcomed by Opposition Members?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend makes the point in his characteristically clear way. The Conservative party is interested in choice and in giving people the opportunity to make decisions about their lives. Opposition Members want to deny people that choice.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Before the Minister gets too enthralled by the golden thread of rents to mortgages, let me point out that, as he knows, many people who have bought under the right-to-buy scheme, to which the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) will later allude when he introduces his Assistance for Local Authority Leaseholders Bill, are finding it impossible to sell their homes or pay for the capital or service charges. Can he tell them when he will relieve them of the consequences of buying under the Government's scheme, before he puts other people in a similar position?

Sir George Young: As I think that the hon. Member will agree, most of those who bought flats from their local authorities did so with the benefit of substantial discounts, also benefited from the fall in interest rates and in no way regret the decision. A minority—

Mr. Battle: Seventy thousand.

Sir George Young: It is nowhere near 70,000. A minority of those who bought are having difficulty selling their flats. My Department is having discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the local authorities. We are encouraging some local authorities to follow the example of authorities such as Wandsworth, which gives mortgage indemnities to those who want to buy flats. I urge all local authorities to consider whether they have a role to play in proposing mortgage indemnity schemes—48 are doing so—or doing what the London borough of Enfield has done and buying the flats back.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Should not that excellent scheme now be extended to housing association tenants? Will my right hon. Friend look at the ways in which that could be done, despite the early opposition in another place to home purchase by tenants of housing associations?

Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend knows, housing association tenants do not have the opportunity to take up rent to mortgage, because housing associations use private finance to supplement their resources to build new homes. We have given those tenants opportunities to get access to home ownership by extending the tenants' incentive scheme, which gives them the cash sums that they need to purchase homes in the open market. To some extent, that is a broader choice, because it does not confine them to buying the home in which they currently live.

Water (Compulsory Metering)

Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take in respect of the practice of charging for water by compulsory metering of the domestic water supply.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): The basis for charging is a matter for each water company.

Ms Eagle: Yet another answer from the Government in which they say that something is not a matter for them. We have just heard a lot about choice from Ministers, yet water metering is rarely a matter of choice; in fact it is compulsory. Does the Minister agree that when water is compulsorily metered there is a vast increase in the size of bills? What will he say to my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. McGregor, who have seen their charge of £70 a year for water transformed into a charge of £144 for the first quarter—an increase of close to 700 per cent.—which they simply cannot pay?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady flies in the face of the facts that confront the average user of, say, electricity or of gas, which is metered and distributed on the basis of those who can afford to pay.

Mr. Enright: But sewage charges are not metered.

Mr. Atkins: If the hon. Gentleman were to be quiet for once, he might hear something to his advantage.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) must understand, as I am sure that many people do, that if we are to be concerned about difficulties with water—for example, the demands for water that we have seen during drought periods in parts of England—we must understand that it is a commodity that may have to be treated in similar ways to others. I do not pretend to offer an absolute answer. Perhaps she would like to consult her Front Bench about the environmental concepts that she pretends to put forward in what, after all, is a point that does not have much validity.

Mr. Thomason: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not unreasonable for people to pay for what they use? Therefore, is not it right that subsidy should not be given when one bears in mind that, on average, with a metering system people will pay exactly the same? That point of elementary mathematics appears to have been misunderstood, or is incapable of appreciation, by Opposition Members.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is quite right. Opposition Members are not very good at mathematics. Although vie should be tolerant of their foibles, the fact remains that, as is often the case with environmental issues, they say one thing here and another outside.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister must accept, however, that compulsory metering hits many households, especially large families with children and those with disabilities who need frequent bathing. If the Minister is worried about the environmental effects of drought, will he tell the water companies to do something about the 25 per cent. leakage of water, which is lost from the system and never gets to households? Does not he recognise that compulsory metering takes no account of human need, that it rations by price and discourages proper hygiene? Will he now ensure


that private water companies such as Anglian Water, which has already embarked on a programme of compulsory metering, are told to desist in no uncertain terms?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The fact remains that gas and electricity, which are metered—

Ms Eagle: They are quite different.

Mr. Atkins: They are not quite different; they are comparable and those utilities are required by average families, who pay accordingly. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) knows as well as I do that those in need and the more vulnerable members of society are able to obtain help and support from benefit offices. There is no point in the hon. Gentleman standing at the Dispatch Box to suggest that metering is not on. There are alternative methods of payment, of which metering is one.

Water Charges

Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of South West Water to discuss the basis of water charges.

Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend has not yet had the opportunity to meet the chairman of South West Water. I hope to do so shortly.

Mr. Nicholls: As and when my hon. Friend meets the chairman, I hope that he will take the opportunity to tell him about the indignation and anger that have been expressed during the past four years by hon. Members who represent the west country at the unsustainable level of water charges in the west country, which have continued to rise unabated. When does my hon. Friend expect the valuable initiatives taken in Europe to try to cope with those charges to bring about some decrease?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is one of my hon. Friends who have led many delegations to see Ministers, former ones and current ones, to discuss with us the problems of his constituents. I know that he will understand that we are doing all that we possibly can to alleviate the pressures on South West Water and on my hon. Friend's constituents. What is apparent, from what my hon. Friend knows and from what he and his colleagues have said to my right hon. Friend and to me, is that Opposition Members believe that we should implement directives on quality in some areas but are not prepared to listen to the concerns so adequately and properly represented by my hon. Friend and others on behalf of their constituents about those increases in charges.

Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware of the deep concern expressed in Devon and Cornwall by ordinary water users about the fact that their bills are due to double in the next four years to more than £500 a year on average? Is he also aware that people in the area are appalled by the synthetic concern expressed by people like the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) who, after all, voted in the House for higher bills?

Mr. Atkins: I do not believe that we need any lessons in synthetic protest from Opposition Members.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister accept that it is now well over a year since the Prime Minister came to the

west country and promised to cut bills? Since then, bills have continued to increase. When the bills for next year shortly fall through their letter boxes, people will find that they have gone up by almost a third since the Prime Minister made that promise. How long do they have to wait until their bills are a reasonable level?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman knows full well, because he has also had a meeting with the Secretary of State—incidentally, he broke the information on that to the press before it was properly made available, but, frankly, that is typical of the Liberal party—that the situation is quite clear. We have understood the problem faced by people in the south-west, which is due to the fact that that region has a larger number of beaches than other parts of the United Kingdom. Is the hon. Gentleman expecting his hon. Friends in other parts of the country to subsidise the costs that his constituents are being asked to bear? If so, I should be extremely interested to learn his hon. Friends' response to that suggestion.

Housing Stock

Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he plans to take to encourage local authorities to transfer their housing stock to housing associations.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Twenty five authorities have so far transferred their housing, with the agreement of their tenants, and 18 more are programmed to do so between now and March next year. I shall encourage more to do so in the future.

Mr. Luff: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the real benefits that will start to flow in Wychavon, to the tenants of Wychavon council housing and to the homeless, following the decision of the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction to allow the authority's stock to be transferred to two housing associations? Does he share my concern about the propaganda from certain Labour-controlled local authorities and the Labour party branches of Maidstone and Thanet against such transfers? Does he agree that it is about time that the Opposition started to put the interests of tenants and the homeless above their petty ideology?

Mr. Gummer: When such a transfer was first made in my constituency, I had my doubts, but all I can say is that the experience of transferring local council housing in Suffolk, Coastal to Suffolk Heritage housing association has been uniformly good. In my surgeries, I find that far fewer complaints and many more congratulations are offered about the way in which local housing is run.
I hope that the Opposition will recognise that. I understand that some members of the Labour party realise that it is sensible, as it benefits the tenants and provides more homes for the homeless.

Mrs. Mahon: What can the Minister do about transferring the high-rise flats in Mixenden in my constituency, where asbestos has been found? The local authority cannot afford to pay for its removal. Would the Minister make special grants available if the property were transferred to a housing association?

Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Lady knows, a number of local authorities, many of them Labour controlled, are now joining in to decide how best to deal with such matters. [Interruption.] Opposition Members must try to realise that I am trying to be as non-party political as usual, and I shall continue to try and be so. I do not want to embarrass any of the hon. Lady's colleagues, but they are looking into the matter. If the hon. Lady has a particular problem about asbestos in a particular block of flats, I am happy to consider it.

Local Government Commission

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Local Government Commission to produce its preliminary report on the future structure of local government in Devon and Cornwall.

Mr. Baldry: The Local Government Commission has asked for initial proposals for Devon to be submitted to it by 8 April and for Cornwall by 29 April. The commission will then prepare draft proposals, on which it will consult local people and other interested parties. The publication date for them is a matter for the commission.

Mr. Steen: Does my hon. Friend agree that a recent High Court ruling has changed the rules in favour of two-tier authorities? Does that explain why the commission is now no longer saying that unitary authorities are the preferred option, but that it will investigate and examine the merits of unitary authorities? Is he aware that the MORI poll in Devon recently shows that there is no pressure for change in our county?

Mr. Baldry: First, the Government firmly believe that unitary authorities are often the best way to achieve effective and convenient local government. My hon. Friend is free to make his own views known to the commission, but he has to be aware that there are other views in Devon. I understand that eight out of 10 district councils in Devon are putting an agreed joint submission to the commission proposing a smaller number of unitary authorities. The political complexion of the districts involved is one Conservative, two independent, two Liberal, two with no overall control and one Labour. That shows that, in Devon, as elsewhere in the country, local people and councils of all political complexions are discussing with their neighbours the natural size of local government that is best for their area and are putting agreed proposals to the commission.

Mr. Grocott: Does not the Minister owe it to the House to be absolutely precise about the soaring cost of his plans for local government reform? Can he confirm that the cost of the commission has risen from £2 million two years ago to an estimated £8 million next year? Can he further confirm that substantial numbers of civil servants in his Department are engaged full time on that and nothing else and that many others are peripherally involved?
Finally, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that virtually every local authority in the country is having to devote substantial resources to dealing with the problems of local government reform? If he wants to pursue such a policy, does he not owe it to local authorities at least to make sure that central Government provide them with the funds for dealing with that expensive procedure?

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not appreciated that the timetable for the commission has been reduced this year. Of course, that means that the costs are higher this year, but the overall costs are exactly the same. I am also surprised by the hon. Gentleman's lukewarm approach to the issue. Clearly, he has not consulted his Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) who made it clear that Labour has been in favour of unitary authorities almost for ever. I thus find his remarks surprising and out of tune with what is being said, but perhaps it is yet another instance of the Labour party being totally split.

Mr. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the recent court case and subsequent ministerial advice, many of us in the west country take the view that we are over-governed, that there is a strong case for single-tier local authorities, that Cornwall needs local government based on the existing district councils and that the county council should be scrapped?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes some very good points about the duplication of functions. There is bound to be confusion when essential services, such as housing and education, are delivered by different authorities in the same area. In my hon. Friend's constituency, it must be confusing to local people that if they are concerned about the cleaning of their street, they must approach their district council, but if they are concerned about the maintenance of their street, they must approach the county council. That cannot make good sense. As I have made clear, we firmly believe that unitary authorities will often be the best way to achieve effective and convenient local government.

Housing Association Houses

Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest estimate of the number of new housing association houses to be completed in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest estimate of the number of new housing association houses to be completed in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

Sir George Young: The Housing Corporation estimates that housing associations will provide around 57,600 new lettings in 1993–94, 58,300 in 1994–95 and 51,500 in 1995–96; a total of around 167,400 over the three years.

Mr. Burden: Is not the real fact that in the next financial year Government investment in housing associations will be cut by more than £300 million and in the year after by not far short of £300 million? How does the Minister explain away the fact that his Government have spent years grooming housing associations as an alternative to local authorities in providing low-cost housing only now to strangle housing associations, forcing them to cut back on building, or raise rents, or both? What does that mean for the 900 families who become homeless in my city of Birmingham every single month?

Sir George Young: What really matters is the fact that the Government have exceeded by 25,000 the number of new units they said that they would provide. We have exceeded our manifesto commitment by producing


178,000 new homes as against 153,000. In the three years 1989–90 to 1991–92 the output was 70,000; in the next three years it is likely to be 178,000. That is what really matters for the homeless.

Mr. Barron: Is not what really matters the newbuild social housing that we have for rent in this country and not the figures which the Government are putting out? Is not it true that there will be a 38 per cent. reduction in building new social housing for rent rather than the figures with which the Minister is misleading the House?

Sir George Young: What really matters for people in housing need is the number of new lettings. Those are the figures that are of relevance to people in housing need and they are the figures which consistently go up.

Mr. Hendry: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there are 2 million more houses in this country than there were in 1979, but that too many of them are currently empty? Can he also confirm that the Government's task force on empty properties is making a concerted attack on bringing back into use those empty Government properties? Is not it time that Labour local authorities who are sitting on thousands upon thousands of empty houses made an equally determined attack on the problem?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. We must make better use of the stock that we already have. There are some 800,000 units empty and there is a political imperative to bring them back into use. I hope shortly to receive the report of the task force, with its recommendations for making better use of Government-owned properties. Local authorities, particularly Labour-controlled local authorities in London, must make better use of their own housing stock if we are to make faster progress.

Mr. Barry Field: Is not the real answer to more housing association houses being built to give the tenants the right to buy? To paraphrase Shakespeare, what we would like to hear on this side of the House is: "Sir George for England and for housing association tenants".

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for injecting a patriotic note into our discussions.
As I explained, many housing association tenants have the opportunity to become home owners by taking advantage of the tenants incentive scheme. The way in which housing associations are now funded makes it impossible to extend to housing association tenants rights parallel to those available to local authority tenants; but, in many cases, the tenants incentive scheme is a better alternative.

Mr. Pike: The Minister was very selective about the figure that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). He did not dare to compare the current position with that of 1979. Will he not admit that there is now a serious shortfall in housing that is built for rent, as a result of Government policy? The Government are now cutting the money available to housing associations, and they have axed local authority provision. Given that he accepted last year that capital receipts should be used to allow new building, why does not the Minister accept that they should be used for that purpose now?

Sir George Young: The figures for homeless

acceptances have fallen for the past six quarters; in the past 12 months, there have been 41 per cent. fewer people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation; and the number of lettings is rising. That is the currency which matters to people on waiting lists or in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We are making good progress, and we are determined to go on and do even better.

Mr. John Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 9 per cent. of Hackney council's housing stock is unlet? Does he not think that the council is trying to become even less efficient than Lambeth council—if that is possible?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right: there are housing difficulties in Hackney and it is incumbent on Hackney council to do all that it can to make better use of its housing stock. Filling those properties would generate a rental income which, in turn, could be ploughed back into improving the condition of the housing stock. I very much hope that that will be one of the issues on which public attention will be focused in London over the forthcoming months.

Battersea Power Station

Mr Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a repair order in respect of Battersea power station.

Mr. Gummer: No. This is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage; but I understand that English Heritage inspected the building last month and noted no significant change in its condition.

Mr. Banks: Does the Secretary of State recall John Broome's proposals 10 years ago to turn Battersea power station into a sort of Disneyland, at a ceremony attended by Margaret Thatcher? Now—apart from its roof having come off—the power station is in danger of falling down. As the Minister responsible for London, and the ultimate planning authority for London, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will take urgent steps to find a community use for Gilbert Scott's wonderful gem on the Thames that is compatible with its architectural importance?

Mr. Gummer: We must get the balance right. Much of the work done under Mr. Broome's ownership was of a structural nature, and it is clear that the danger to which the hon. Gentleman refers does not exist at present. I shall keep an eye on the power station, however, because—like the hon. Gentleman—I recognise its importance as an architectural feature. Although there is dispute about quite how important it is, I accept the hon. Gentleman's view.

Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Battersea power station is just one example of a sad category of buildings that have attracted the attention of Government Departments as gems of one kind or another, but have then been listed in a way that makes it extraordinarily difficult to adapt them, and have then been left for long periods? Many have decayed to a point at which they can no longer be rescued. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the Secretary of State for National Heritage about this distressing scandal?

Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether it is a growing scandal, although it is certainly distressing when buildings that might be put to better and newer use are not so put. We must accept that it is particularly difficult to find a new use for this building. It is, however, being regularly and properly inspected by English Heritage, and it should be recognised that large sums are necessary if it is to be put to a reasonable use. I do not think that my hon. Friend has many bright ideas about that—and few Opposition Members have either bright ideas or suggestions about where the money should come from.

Council Accommodation

Ms Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposals to change priorities for rehousing families in permanent council accommodation.

Mr. Gummer: The consultation paper on access to local authority and housing association tenancies was issued on 20 January. The consultation period ends on 18 March.

Ms Coffey: Does the Minister agree that, in the allocation of houses, it is not the system but the shortage of decent, affordable housing that is the problem? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an inevitable consequence of the proposals in the homelessness review will be an increase in the number of children coming into care because their parents are overwhelmed by housing difficulties? Does he really want to go back to a "Cathy Come Home" situation? Will he reconsider his proposals, which only serve to punish the homeless for their housing need, and deal with the real problem, which is a shortage of decent, affordable housing in this country?

Mr. Gummer: I think that the hon. Lady is mistaken, and I shall explain why. At the moment, we have a situation in which some people, who are in very bad housing conditions but are not technically homeless, are left in those conditions, whereas others, who are in better conditions but are technically homeless, take the places that are available. What we are proposing is simply that we should seek a common means of sharing, on the basis of need, the accommodation that is available. The hon. Lady should be ashamed of herself for trying to suggest otherwise. She is using the plight of homeless and sad families for party political purposes.

Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current legislation on homelessness works against ordinary families with children who are in need, who often find themselves on the housing list for years despite the fact that they are local people with a right to be housed?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that when the legislation on homelessness was introduced it was intended to give people access to local authority and housing association accommodation on the basis of need. It is clear that that does not always happen, and it is sensible that we should try to ensure that in future it will. I do not understand why Opposition Members, who are supposedly interested in the provision of housing for those in priority need, find it impossible to join us in this effort and, instead, use the situation for sordid party political purposes.

Mr. Battle: On the subject of shame, is not the reality that here, the shame rests with the Conservative party? Will the Secretary of State, instead of scapegoating single mothers and, now, the homeless in general and rubbing out people's right to a secure home by offering only a short-term break of six months in a private rented bedsit, cancel this uncalled-for, unwanted, back-to-basics-tainted review of the homelessness legislation, which is crudely geared to fiddling the homelessness figures—doing to the homeless what the Government have done to the unemployed, and doing absolutely nothing to tackle the real housing and homelessness problem, which the Government are deliberately turning into a crisis?

Mr. Gummer: I do not think that it is acceptable that a family with children living in very bad housing should wait and wait and wait while people who are statutorily homeless, even though they have a better roof over their heads, jump the queue. The hon. Gentleman ought to take the opportunity of his next article in the newspaper for which he writes regularly to explain that Conservatives want to ensure that choices are made entirely on the basis of need rather than on the basis of statutory entitlement. Until the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the bona fides of others, as we are prepared to accept his bona fides, he will have nothing to contribute to this debate.

Energy Efficiency

Mr. Stephen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to encourage greater energy efficiency.

Mr. Atkins: My Department is taking forward a comprehensive range of measures to encourage greater energy efficiency. These are set out in the Government's response to the Select Committee's report on energy efficiency in buildings, which was published yesterday, and also in the United Kingdom's climate change programme, which was launched by the Prime Minister on 25 January.

Mr. Stephen: Is my hon. Friend aware that the doubling of resources for the home energy efficiency scheme announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the November Budget has been widely welcomed throughout the country, especially by the elderly and disabled? Will he ensure that the benefits of the scheme are made widely known throughout the country to those who may be eligible?

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is right to draw attention to the fact that we are increasing the budget in that area, as in many others related to energy efficiency. I will certainly take to heart his strictures about ensuring that the public are even more aware of what is needed to improve energy efficiency.

Mr. George Howarth: Is it not time that the Minister admitted that all those documents and policies are long-gone pious hopes, short on realistic objectives? The Energy Conservation Bill, which represents a practical way of doing something about the problems, passed unamended through its Committee stage this morning. Will the Minister now assure the House that on Report he will not seek to weaken the important principle in clause 2—the duty to survey properties—by providing the alternative of


a permissive principle, which would make the Bill a toothless tiger—or can we assume that that is his real objective?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman was present this morning when the Standing Committee examined the matter at some length, and he will understand, as will the promoter of the Bill, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that there are issues that cause some concern, and which are the subject of some consideration. In due course, we shall consider what action to take in relation to them.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: May I generally welcome the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, and its positive tone, as well as the responses of OFFER—the Office of Electricity Regulation—and the Energy Saving Trust? But may I underline the fact that the EST clearly has problems in funding a very important programme that will be the key to fulfilling our obligations under the climate change convention? May I therefore urge my hon. Friend to redouble his efforts to bring together the EST and the regulators to ensure that a solution is found to the problem and the funds produced?

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will be interested to know that the regulators will meet officials from my Department tomorrow. I will certainly press the cause that he advocates.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the standard spending assessment formula used to determine local government spending in Liverpool.

Mr. Curry: Liverpool's standard spending assessment is calculated according to the formulae set out in the local government finance report for 1994–95, which was approved by the House on 3 February.

Mr. Alton: How can the Minister justify a formula that leads to children at risk in Birmingham being allotted £5,000 per head, whereas in Liverpool the sum is only £800 per head? How can he justify a formula that leads to a city that has been afforded objective 1 status by the European Community losing about £17 million from its assessment in the current financial year? Whereas local authorities across the country are receiving an average increase of more than 3 per cent., Liverpool will have a reduction of more than 1 per cent. In the circumstances, is the Minister now in a position to respond to the representations made to him by all the political parties on Liverpool city council? They are still awaiting a reply.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman would know a little more about the justification for the standard spending assessments had he been in the House when we debated them, and had he voted on that occasion. He was not here. It is not my job to compensate for his previous absence. The SSA system has been worked out objectively; it is a formula-based system, a means of dividing a fixed cake. The fact that Liverpool gets lots of benefits from other schemes is not relevant to the consideration. I told Liverpool clearly that if its representatives wished to discuss the way in which we took the SSA system forward

I should be perfectly willing to do that. I have made that offer to all the councils whose representatives have come to see me. This year's settlement was agreed by the House in the hon. Gentleman's absence.

Sir Thomas Arnold: Are the findings of the 1991 census now incorporated fully into the SSA formulae?

Mr. Curry: Yes they are. In future years, the population estimates will be included until there is another census that will enable us to incorporate the actual figures. That is part of the continual updating of the system.

Car Boot Sales

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had on the control of car boot sales.

Mr. Baldry: We regularly receive correspondence on the subject of car boot sales from those who are concerned about the problems that badly managed events can sometimes cause and from others who regard car boots sales as a useful activity which is already adequately regulated.

Mr. Griffiths: As the Federation of Small Businesses fears that the abolition of market franchise rights will harm traditional village and town markets, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that honest market traders and consumers are protected from the minority of car boot sale cowboys?

Mr. Baldry: There is a battery of regulation and legislation already in place which can be used to control car boot sales. It may be helpful to the House if I state that the Acts are the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Theft Act 19768, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions.) Act 1976, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Local authorities already have a wide range of powers to manage car boot sales. One wonders what further regulation the Labour party wants. Does it simply want to ban car boot sales altogether?

Mr. Lidington: Will my hon. Friend please bear it in mind that well-managed car boot sales provide a useful source of income to many charities and voluntary organisations? Will he try to avoid producing yet more well-intentioned legislation, which ends up letting the villains escape and trammelling decent people in yet more burdens of red tape?

Mr. Baldry: As I have already made clear, there are at least eight Acts of Parliament that apply to the control of car boot sales. My hon. Friend makes a good point that there are large number of organisations, including voluntary and charitable organisations, that find car boot sales a useful way to legitimately raise funds.

Mr. Vaz: What is the real reason why the Government have reversed their policy on market deregulation from their statement contained in a letter from officials to the National Association of British Market Authorities on 11 March 1991? Will the Minister confirm that a change in franchise rights will allow car-boot cheats to thrive at the expense of honest traders? It will be a crooks charter. Does


not he accept that that failure to reimburse local authorities for any change in franchise rights would, in the words of his officials,
infringe the European convention on human rights
as it amounts to expropriation without compensation? When will the Minister clear up that mess?

Mr. Baldry: I am somewhat boggle-minded at the idea that removing archaic rights given by the Crown many years ago to local authorities is somehow in contravention of the European convention on human rights, but I believe that anything can be said at Question Time. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is completely bogus. The only right that market franchise rights give to a local authorities is to be able to object to a market being within six and two thirds of a mile on that day. As most car boot sales take place on a Sunday, it follows that market franchise rights have little, if any effect, in controlling car boot sales.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet the leader of Chelmsford borough council to discuss local government finance.

Mr. Curry: I shall do my best to respond positively to an invitation.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. If he were to come to Chelmsford to meet the leader of Chelmsford borough council, Councillor Wedon, he and the other Conservative councillors would explain how they have reduced the council tax bill by £20 in the current year while maintaining services. He would also hear that that good work for the taxpayer will be undercut by the increases that Labour and Liberal-controlled Essex county council is imposing on charge payers by spending up to its standard spending assessment.

Mr. Curry: I know that the present leadership in Chelmsford has tried to pull back the council from the exorbitant levels of expenditure reached by the Liberal Democrat party and I am sad that those efforts will be undermined by the opposition parties of Essex county council. That will end the tradition of sound rule.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the Bolsover district council will travel to Chelmsford and they will pass all those cones on the M1 to discuss the important question of the landslip, which they discussed with the Minister, on

which six houses have already been demolished—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not in Chelmsford.] We are prepared to discuss it at Chelmsford, at Finchley, at Westminster—

Madam Speaker: Order. It is being discussed here, at Westminster. The hon. Gentleman's question is irrelevant.

Mr. Skinner: We will travel anywhere to get the money.

Madam Speaker: Order. We are in Westminster now.

Single-tier Local Government

Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the estimates of potential savings as a result of the creation of single-tier local government in England.

Mr. Baldry: The capacity for savings across England will depend on the action of the councils established by Parliament following the recommendations of the Local Government Commission.

Mr. Hall: Does the Minister agree that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that shire counties' estimates of the transitional costs of the local government review are grossly exaggerated? Does he agree that they have also grossly exaggerated the pay-back period of those transitional costs and that there are real savings to be made in the local government review? Therefore, the shire counties' claim that the review will mean £100 on people's council taxes is erroneous. Does the Minister also agree that unitary authorities offer great scope for local government, particularly in Halton and Warrington borough councils which I represent?

Mr. Baldry: In local government reorganisation, we must look at the opportunities that that reorganisation presents to find ways in which services can be better delivered for the benefit of local people. I have absolutely no doubt that, up and down the country, people of all political complexions are coming together to find just that. We need to treat with suspicion some of the estimates of the costs of reorganisation presented by way of special pleading from particular groups from wherever they come. However, I hope that everyone considering the reorganisation of local government will consider ways in which long-term savings can be made as a consequence of reorganisation.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: No, I have a statement. I call Mr. Robin Cook to ask his private notice question.

British Steel

Mr. Robin Cook: (by private notice): To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the decision of the European Commission to fine British Steel.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The European Commission announced this morning the decision to impose fines of slightly more than 100 million ecu on 16 steel companies from six Community and three Scandinavian countries.
Under the treaty of Paris—the European Coal and Steel Community treaty—the Commission has sole jurisdiction in the application of competition law to cartels and restrictive agreements so far as they concern primary steel products. I would emphasise that the Government support the full and fair application of the Community's competition rules.
My latest information is that British Steel has not yet received formal notification from the Commission. However, the fines are being levied following a Commission investigation into alleged anti-competitive activity in beams. The Commission has made a finding of price fixing, exchange of information and market sharing.
The procedures which have led to the imposition of the fine constitute a legal process. It is open to the company to appeal and I understand that it intends to do so.
The House will recall that the European steel industry had operated with production quotas administered by the Commission under the manifest crisis provisions of the ECSC treaty between 1980 and 1988.
The chairman of British Steel has told me that the company is surprised at the decision, particularly since it contends that the Commission was aware of exchanges of information that continued after the ending of the manifest crisis on 30 June 1988.
I would stress that this matter is entirely for the Commission and the company, but we shall be studying the wider implications carefully and discussing them with British Steel at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Cook: Does not the Minister appreciate that the statement which the House wanted was not one about what the Commission had decided, but one about what was the view of the British Government and what the British Government were going to do about it? Does he not understand that the survival of the British steel industry is not something else that he can add to the long list of things for which the Government will take no responsibility?
Does not the Minister realise that the reason why today's fine will cause anger and anxiety among the work force at British Steel is that it is another blow to an industry which has already lost 100,000 jobs and shed double the capacity of the rest of Europe?
Will the Minister confirm that the fine which has been imposed on British Steel is larger than that on any of the 16 companies to which he referred, and is three times larger than the next biggest fine? Why should British Steel, which has already made the biggest cuts in capacity, now be hit with the biggest fine? Will the Minister confirm that the value of the fine imposed on British Steel is larger than the profits that it declared for the first six months of 1993? What will that mean for steel plants that are already at risk and are already having difficulty making ends meet?
In the light of today's fine, will the Minister now reconsider his decision at the meeting of the Council of Ministers in December to agree to large new subsidies for German, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese steel industries? Will he confirm that, at the meeting, he agreed to state subsidies of £5 billion to those industries? How can it be fair competition to fine British Steel millions and subsidise German and Italian steel by billions? Does the Minister remember saying before the meeting that no deal was better than a bad deal? Will he now admit that it was a bad deal and that today's fine makes it a worse deal for British Steel?
Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the Commission what he failed to tell it in December, and that is that there will be no more cuts in steel capacity in Britain until the rest of Europe have matched the cuts in capacity that we have already made, and that the solution to the crisis in the steel industry in Europe is to wind down subsidies to capacity in the least efficient companies, not to fine British Steel and threaten the most efficient steel plants in Europe?

Mr. Sainsbury: I find Labour Members' great enthusiasm for all things related to Europe and their untrammelled support for the treaty of Rome somewhat at odds with the hon. Gentleman's approach to the question. He asked what the Government intend to do about it. I suppose that he might have been suggesting that we leave the European Union and seek the abrogation of the treaty of Rome and the treaty of Paris. If he is not suggesting that, I assume that he would like us and other member states to adhere to the provisions of the treaty. The hon. Gentleman displays his ignorance of the provisions of the treaty by asking what the Government can do about something which, as I made clear in my answer, is entirely a matter for the Commission and for the company concerned.
I am happy—he might be surprised—to agree with the hon. Gentleman on one thing. I am surprised that he ever says anything that I find myself able to agree with. He said that it would be most useful for British steel companies to wind down the illegal state subsidies being paid in the rest of Europe. That indeed was the purpose of the agreement of 17 December. It was unanimously agreed in the Council of Ministers because it brought about not only a substantial reduction in capacity but, more important, an agreement to end operating cost subsidies and the imposition of the strictest monitoring arrangements on that point that we have ever had in the European Community.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Now that we have had the initial exchange, I am looking for brisk answers and even brisker questions.

Mr. Michael Bates: Will my right hon. Friend dismiss the hollow words of Opposition Members who opposed the privatisation of British Steel which has led to its productivity? Will he accept that the news will be a bitter blow to the workers and managers at British Steel at Skinningrove in my constituency? Will he also accept that, on top of the decision that they will have to face capacity cuts, the news is unwelcome? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we want Europe's most efficient steel producer, British Steel, to be allowed to operate in a free market and on a level playing field?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am very happy to agree that we want British Steel, which is probably Europe's most efficient


producer of primary steel products, to be able to operate and trade in a free and fair market. That is why we entirely support the Commission in what it is seeking to do to end illegal state subsidies. We will pursue that objective as energetically as we can, and we will monitor the Commission's performance in monitoring illegal state subsidies as closely as we can.

Mr. Richard Caborn: Does the Minister agree that it is crude timetabling for the Commission to bring forward the matter after three years of investigations? Would it be more in tune with the deal that he tried to do to take out 25 million tonnes of excess capacity and compare that with the British Steel Corporation's and the British steel industry's removal of capacity, particularly with the manifest crisis, which was done in the reference period and which mitigated against our own steel industry? When he attends the next ministerial conference, will he ensure that there are no further reductions until the deficit produced in the manifest crisis between 1980 and 1988 is met? Will he at least give the British steel industry a fair crack of the whip?

Mr. Sainsbury: Our extensive contacts with British Steel and the British steel industry show that most of all they want the elimination of the operating cost subsidies that go to state-owned companies in other parts of Europe. They also want and expect further reductions in capacity. Substantial reductions in capacity were agreed at the Industry Council on 17 December. It was also agreed that there should be strict monitoring arrangements to ensure that there was an end to operating cost subsidies.
I assure hon. Members that, in our efforts to ensure that the agreement is adhered to, we shall leave no stone unturned. The Commission is already aware of our views on the subject and I shall ensure that it will remain in no doubt about them.

Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Commission cannot face both ways? On 17 December, it was asked and gave approval to sanction retrospectively £5 billion of illegal subsidies in Spain, Italy and Germany. Is it not the industrial economics of the mad house to sanction such support and not to reduce the capacity of inefficient producers? If the removal of 5 million tonnes of capacity is part of the deal, will there be a guarantee that the reduction will be made among those inefficient producers in other parts of Europe?

Mr. Sainsbury: As my hon. Friend said, we want substantial reductions in capacity, particularly in the three countries that he mentioned—Germany, Italy and Spain—where the reductions in capacity that occurred in the United Kingdom have not been matched. Furthermore, we want the elimination of operating cost subsidies. The subsidies that were sanctioned by the Industry Council on 17 December were connected with restructuring and reduction in capacity. Those operating cost subsidies have distorted the market, to the disadvantage of British steel producers. We are determined to eliminate those subsidies.

Mr. Peter Snape: What impact will the fine have on British Steel's production and, consequently, on British manufacturing? Given that the Minister, on two previous occasions, has made

hand-washing—or hand-wringing—statements on the future of the British industry, is he prepared to defend from the Dispatch Box any sector of our once great industry?

Mr. Sainsbury: I do not know what constitutes hand wringing—or hand washing—in the hon. Gentleman's eyes, but I and many commentators believe that my statement the other day was good news for British Aerospace and the British car industry. The fine is, of course, a matter for British Steel, but it has said already that it intends to appeal and it thinks that it has a good case. 'We should await the outcome of that appeal.

Mr. Roger Knapman: What guarantee will my right hon. Friend give that, if the fines are confirmed and British Steel meets its fine as a private limited company, in Italy the fine will not be paid by a further subsidy from the Italian Government? After all, £28 million is a lot of money. It would keep 28 Members of the European Parliament going for a full working year.

Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, but the largest fines were levied on private sector companies. A number of private companies in Germany, for example, had substantial fines imposed upon them. I cannot say whether they will appeal, and I cannot anticipate the outcome of appeals in that or any other case.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister confirm that the workers and shareholders of British Steel will pay the fine but that in other parts of the Community the taxpayer will pay the fine?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard my previous reply. I said that most of the companies, especially those that received the largest fines, which are subject to appeal, are private sector companies, so their shareholders and workers will pay the fines.

Sir Roger Moate: Is it not clear that, unless there is a major reduction in capacity soon across the whole of Europe, the British steel industry and others will be in a state of manifest crisis? While we fully accept that my right hon. Friend is robustly trying to turn every stone and achieve everything, can he explain what steps are open to the British Government to protect the British steel industry against further penalties of this sort and further unfair competition if the Commission continues to fail to deliver the goods?

Mr. Sainsbury: As I said in the statement, we support the full and fair application of the Commission's competition rules. We are not in favour of cartels. 'We believe that they operate to the disadvantage of customers of the industry. It is against that background that we are seeking to create a fairer competitive environment for steel in Europe. That requires not only the elimination of capacity, to which my hon. Friend referred—a certain amount of elimination has already been agreed and we hope to see more—but, most of all, the elimination of operating cost subsidies to British Steel's competitors so that those competitors must compete with British Steel on a fair basis. That is what we are now moving towards as a result of the agreement of the Industry Council on 17 December. As I said, I am determined to ensure that that agreement is adhered to.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Can the Minister explain why the Commission is acting on beams and sections while maintaining that the principal problem is the excess capacity of strip products?

Mr. Sainsbury: The two issues are not directly connected because the investigation, which goes back to 1991—it has lasted for some three years—relates to agreements which the Commission contends existed with regard to those particular products. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that the overcapacity, which a number of hon. Members have referred to and which is most evident in the Community at present, relates to flat products and other products rather than beams.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is it not the case that the biggest rigger of the market is the European Commission? Over the years, the Commission, together with European Governments, has meddled and fiddled with the steel industry so that it has created a mess of unproductive overcapacity. Is the real lesson from this that, while markets may not produce perfect solutions, they produce solutions that are a great deal less imperfect than the beggar-my-neighbour industrial policy and protectionism of the type that is constantly espoused by Labour Members and, unfortunately, by the Commission?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend in his support for markets providing the best solution. Unhappily, Labour Members are still some decades away from realising that. My hon. Friend says that the Commission is the biggest rigger of the market and, indeed, the period of manifest crisis declared in the provisions of the European Coal and Steel Community—the treaty of Paris—was obviously a rigging of the market. The Community is also capable of unrigging markets. It is its efforts to bring about the elimination of unfair subsidies that we support and hope to see effective.

Mr. Roy Hughes: When will the Minister recognise that in order to create an efficient steel industry in this country many thousands of jobs were lost, and that what is needed now, above all else, is a level playing field because other countries simply have not cut back as we have done? For example, Germany, Spain and Italy are subsidising their industries. Is it not simply bizarre therefore to talk about fining the British steel industry? I warn the Minister that it can only lead to further job losses. When will he stand up for our steel industry?

Mr. Sainsbury: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the steel industry wishes to see not only capacity reductions but, most of all, the elimination of the subsidies about which he has just complained. That is what we agreed at the Industry Council on 17 December, and that is what I shall stand up for as strongly as I can. It is in all our interests, and especially the interests of British Steel and its customers, to see those unfair subsidies eliminated.

Mr. Roy Thomason: Does not my hon. Friend find it extraordinary that the Commission should come to this conclusion when it appears that it was aware of the exchange of information between steel companies before the inquiry was embarked upon? The Commission made no complaint about the exchange of that information, and now seeks to penalise those who have been undertaking action of which it was aware. Should it not be embarking on a little criticism of its internal arrangements?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has particular knowledge of the industry and makes his point powerfully. It would be wrong for me to prejudge the outcome of the appeal, and I am sure that the issues to which my hon. Friend referred will be raised in that process.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Although I think that the Commission's proposal is outrageous, the Minister cannot object. He voted for the Single European Act, and for the Maastricht and other European treaties which handed over the British steel industry to the unelected and unaccountable Commission. Of course there is an alternative. This sovereign Parliament could say that the proposal is unfair and un-British, and that the Commission could get stuffed.

Mr. Sainsbury: That might almost be unparliamentary language. I must say to the hon. Gentleman what I said in answer to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). We are a member of the European Community, and we adhere to the treaty of Paris. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we leave the EC, he is entitled to his view. [HON. MEMBERS: "We should leave it."] We know the view of Opposition Members who sit below the Gangway, because we hear them all too frequently from sedentary positions. However, it is not the view of the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Is not it the case that since privatisation—indeed, as a result of it—British Steel has become one of the most productive, competitive and efficient steel manufacturers in the world? Bearing in mind that British Steel, as I understand it, faces the largest fine, will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power to ensure that the Commission does not discriminate against British Steel to the advantage of heavily subsidised steel manufacturers on the continent?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend about the efficiency and productivity of British Steel. It is notable that, under nationalisation at the time that the Conservative Government came to power, it took more than 13 man hours to produce a tonne of steel. It now takes substantially less than five man hours, and that makes British Steel one of the most efficient steel producers in the world. I want British Steel to be able to operate and benefit from that efficiency without others having illegal subsidies. We are moving towards achieving that, and we require the Commission's action to achieve it.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: Will the Minister confirm that British Steel's production costs are as much as $90 per tonne below those of its European rivals? As that is the case, is not the issue at stake in this dispute the expectation that British Steel will cut back on its production to accommodate the higher-cost subsidised steel of other European producers? Why will not the Minister say today that he will resist that in all circumstances? What power will he muster to do so?

Mr. Sainsbury: If the hon. Gentleman knows of any evidence to support his allegations, I shall be interested to see it. I have no knowledge that there is any substance to those allegations. I think that he will find it totally without foundation that there is some connection between this decision and capacity.

Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend recall what he said just now about the treaty of Paris and leaving the European Community? Does he accept that


many of us have no desire to leave the EC, but simply want it to work fairly? Is not the way to achieve that to renegotiate the arrangements of the treaty of Paris and other treaties? The disastrous mess created over the coal industry was a direct result of the failure to renegotiate those treaties so that we had a level playing field in Europe. Does not that also apply to British Steel in this issue?

Mr. Sainsbury: I think that my hon. Friend might have meant to refer to British Coal at the end of his question rather than British Steel. The treaty of Paris—the European Coal and Steel Community treaty—enables unfair, unapproved subsidies to be eliminated if strong enough action is taken. The Commission has expressed its view that it wants to take that action. We want to see those subsidies eliminated. If we succeed and the Commission succeeds in that objective, that will be the best possible thing that we can do for British Steel. It will be further evidence, which I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate, of the benefits of the Community and our membership of it.

Mr. Barry Jones: Where is the evidence of the fight by the Minister with regard to the subsidies in Germany, Spain and Italy? Do not Ministers present a pathetic spectacle whingeing and whining their way around Europe?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman's outburst was more in keeping with the normal attitude of his hon. Friends below the Gangway and was somewhat uncharacteristic of him. He, sadly perhaps, was not able to be present at the Industry Council, but I assure him that not only on that occasion but on every other occasion when we have discussed steel, which is an important issue in the Industry Council meetings, I have done as much as I possibly could. Regrettably we sometimes had less support from our European Community colleagues than I would have hoped for.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reality is that the Commission has put up a smokescreen to cover its ineffective action on the position of subsidy in the steel industry across Europe? We must kick and push the Commission to get on with the business because British Steel is under serious threat. It has been privatised, it is not subsidised, it is highly competitive and it could easily collapse under such pressure.

Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that, although I doubt that kicking and screaming would be part of my behaviour, I shall do all that I can to ensure that the subsidies are eliminated. I know of no evidence that the fines on the 16 companies are in any way connected with the current efforts to eliminate subsidies and reduce capacity.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the Minister recognise that the health of the steel industry, and in particular the special steel industry, is fundamental to the whole of manufacturing industry in Britain? He must do more than continue his efforts within Europe. Why does not he consider positive ways in which the Government now could give added support to the steel industry, such as in electricity costs, research investment and environmental matters, as our European competitors do without compunction?

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Lady has noticed the recent decisions that have led to significant reductions in electricity costs for major users. Indeed, they were welcomed by those major users. I find myself somewhat puzzled by the hon. Lady's question. She seemed to ask for subsidies for the British steel industry, which is what I thought we were trying to get rid of on a Europe-wide scale.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Does not the Commission's action convince my right hon. Friend that, far from being impartial in such matters, the Commission is entirely partisan and seeks to impose political solutions to the problem?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am not so convinced. As I have been requested energetically by hon. Members on both sides of the House to do, I shall support the Commission in its efforts to eliminate unfair subsidies.

Mr. Stuart Bell: The Minister misunderstands and misconceives the anger in the House today. In relation to British industry, when it comes to hand-wringing and hand-washing, he has no lessons to learn from Pontius Pilate.
With regard to the remark made by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), and associating my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) with my comments, is the Minister aware of the deep disappointment on Teesside that people have worked so hard, made so many sacrifices and faced so many cuts, yet because British Steel is successful it has had imposed a greater fine? The matter has been going on for three years. The British Government tell us that they wish to be at the heart of Europe. What representations has the Minister made on behalf of British Steel to the EC Commission in those three years?

Mr. Sainsbury: In common with most of his hon. Friends, the hon. Gentleman is anticipating the outcome of the legal process. The matter has yet to go to appeal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) said, British Steel believes that during the appeal several substantial issues will be considered. It contends that those will support the actions for which it and a number of other companies are being fined. We should not assume that the appeal will go adversely, any more than we should assume that it will succeed. [Interruption.] Opposition Members tend to recommend intervention in legal proceedings, but I wonder whether they would approve if those legal proceedings were taking place in the courts of Great Britain.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister recognise that, while he hopes that a level playing field will be brought about, many British industries are being killed off and some may even die in despair before his hope is realised? Has he considered the implications for a related industry? The United Kingdom shipbuilding, ship repair and conversion industries have lost out and will lose out this year because of unfair support. Major contracts worth £40 million, which could come to the United Kingdom, are likely to go to other European Community countries. It is disgraceful that the Government have not taken as robust a stand as Clinton took the other day with the Japanese.

Mr. Sainsbury: I entirely agree with the hon. Member that the shipbuilding industry has some parallels with the steel industry. The Northern Ireland shipbuilding


company, Harland and Wolff, is a company transformed and is now very efficient. Like British Steel and other steel companies in Britain, it wants to compete on what we habitually refer to as a level playing field. Only the Commission can achieve that, and that is what we want it to do. The Commission is well aware of the fact that the British Government attach the strongest importance to the elimination of those subsidies, and it will be constantly reminded of that point of view by what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said today and on every other possible occasion.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the Minister agree that the recent closure of the competitive Templeborough plant in Rotherham is ample demonstration of the abject failure of the Government and the Commission? Does he accept that the most successful engineering steel industry in Europe is now imperilled? What action will the Government take to resolve the anxiety, other than withdrawing the iron and steel employees readaptation benefit scheme, ISERBS, which was a singularly foolish thing to do?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that, like the hon. Gentleman, we all regret the closure of the Templeborough works. It was not directly connected with the events under discussion, but United Engineering Steels will benefit substantially—as would British Steel—from the elimination of unfair subsidies, which I have already mentioned and on which the Commission is working.

Mr. Hardy: When?

Mr. Sainsbury: They should be stopped even now.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Do not the findings substantiate the view that British Steel sacrificed Ravenscraig—the heart of the Scottish steel industry—as the entry price to a sordid price-fixing cartel in Europe? Far from the Government having nothing to do with the arrangements, is it not true that they knew about them, aided and abetted them and that that is why they did not force the sale of Ravenscraig by British Steel? Instead of defending British Steel's illegal activities, why does the Minister not apologise to the people of Lanarkshire and Scotland for allowing their plant to be used as the sacrificial lamb for British Steel's dirty deals in Europe?

Mr. Sainsbury: That unsubstantiated allegation is typical of the hon. Gentleman. Ravenscraig made flat products, but the issue concerns beam, long products.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: The Minister has badly misjudged the mood of the House this afternoon. As the European Commission's findings will affect the future viability of British Steel, does he agree that he was wrong to withdraw the ISERBS arrangement, which assisted redundant steel workers throughout Britain, but especially in Scotland? As he and the Government have done nothing but preside over our rolling over to our European opponents and agree to cuts in British steel production figures, has he considered resigning?

Mr. Sainsbury: As I told some of his hon. Friends, the hon. Gentleman is anticipating the outcome of the appeal and particularly dire consequences. I know that the fine is

substantial, but it might be reduced even if the appeal is not upheld. We should not prejudge the outcome, nor should we prejudge the consequences for British Steel.

Mr. Peter Shore: The Minister speaks of the sole competence of the European Commission. Is not this pathetic non-statement an inevitable consequence of the transfer of power from this country and this Government to the institutions, which are unelected and irresponsible, in the European Community? Is not this statement the harbinger of many more to come, just as the statement that he made about Rover only a fortnight ago was foreshadowed? If the British privatised slimmed-down steel industry is as competitive and world beating as Ministers claim, why is it necessary to become mixed up with a European price cartel?

Mr. Sainsbury: The right hon. Gentleman's views on all matters European are well known in the House and, I think, disagreed with by members of his own Front Bench. I must bring his attention to a point that he might not have reflected on. There is general agreement on both sides of the House that we want to see the elimination of unfair subsidies. Only the Community can bring about that elimination.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Have not we reached a sorry state of affairs when the combination of this Tory Government and the Common Market has resulted in the steel industry being fined, after they signed a treaty based on the free movement of capital and labour? We have the cheapest steel and coal, yet the Common Market does not buy a cobble. The Government have just about closed down the shipbuilding industry. Is it not high time that Britain considered the question—it must be faced at some time—of getting out of the Common Market? It has been an unmitigated disaster from beginning to end. It will even affect the grocer, who will be buying his supermarket trolleys from Germany.

Mr. Sainsbury: We can always rely on the hon. Gentleman to speak with habitual moderation. I fear that we normally can rely on him to express sentiments with which his colleagues on the Front Bench would not agree.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Are not the Government already opting out of the treaty of Paris with their abandonment of the ISERBS scheme with special redundancy payments for steel workers? If they can abandon protection for steel workers, why can they not abandon the imposition of the Commission through the treaty of Paris? Why do not the Government realise that the Common Market Commission is not some lofty objective body but a group of Commissioners fighting for each member state's interests? Has the right hon. Gentleman instructed our Commissioners to do that? Have Ministers behaved like that? Or have they capitulated, as usual, to the diktat of the unelected Commissioners?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman's description of the operations of the Commission and of the Commissioners is, as I suspect he knows, a travesty of the truth. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the abolition of the ISERBS scheme, as he would have seen from the study, a copy of which is in the Library, was not proving to be effective or good value for money, but was entirely compatible with the treaty of Paris.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the Minister tell us exactly what operating subsidies were identified at the Council of Ministers meeting in December? Will he tell us the date on which they will end?

Mr. Sainsbury: I refer the hon. Gentleman to a written answer that I gave earlier in the year about the outcome of—

Mr. Barry Jones: This is awful.

Mr. Sainsbury: It was about the outcome of the Industry Council, which, contrary to the views of the hon. Gentleman, who seems to be getting a bit worked up about this, was not awful. It will be awful if it does not deliver.
What was agreed was a reduction of 4.6 million tonnes of capacity. That we want to see occur. What was also agreed was the elimination of operating cost subsidies, and the strictest monitoring arrangements which the Commission has ever introduced and which the Community has ever seen. We shall hear at the next Industry Council how effectively they are working. I hope to be able to report to the House that they are working effectively and are helping British Steel.

Points of Order

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order of which I have given you notice. Yesterday, I received a copy of a document that has been issued by an Indian-based organisation. It calls on people living in the United Kingdom to boycott the goods produced in the constituencies of a number of hon. Members. It names 13 Labour Members, two Conservative Members, one Liberal Democrat and one Labour Member of the European Parliament—

Madam Speaker: Order. May I have the hon. Gentleman's attention? I have no indication of the subject that he is seeking to raise with me. It seems that it may well concern a matter of privilege, so he should write to me about it and I will certainly consider it. I think that it would be wise if the hon. Gentleman did not try to pursue the point of order now, because I believe that it could be a matter of privilege.

Mr. Madden: I am uncertain of that matter, Madam Speaker. I wrote to you and I left a note in your office earlier today.

Madam Speaker: No. I have not had any notice from the hon. Gentleman other than to say that he wished to raise a point of order with me. I have had no notification of what the hon. Gentleman wanted to raise. If he is uncertain about the matter, all the more reason why he should write to me.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister, however inadvertently, to mislead the House during Question Time by saying that the deputy leader of Derbyshire county council is appealing against his conviction for fraud? In fact, that appeal has already failed. Was not my hon. Friend underestimating the extent to which the bunch on the Opposition Benches—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It was only yesterday that I was able to answer a genuine point of order, when I reminded hon. Members that they are abusing our system of points of order. They are not using the procedures correctly. Points of order should be about our Standing Orders and procedures and should not continue debate, which most points of order seem to seek to do.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A number of points of order have been raised about the answers given by executive agencies. I do not wish to resurrect the argument about executive agencies providing letters in answer to parliamentary questions that have been put down.
During the process of clarification, in March 1993 the then Home Secretary gave a list of matters relating to the prison service which were to be answered by the director general. You may recall, Madam Speaker, that those answers were to be printed in Hansard. The scope of that procedure, which has been agreed and accepted by the House as a matter of order and procedure, is now being widened.
I tabled a question about the inquiry by the prison service into the sad suicide of a constituent of mine, Anthony Robert Madden, in Armley gaol on 26 June 1993. I asked for a copy of that report to be placed in the Library.
That matter did not come within the terms of the answer given on 25 March 1993 in Hansard.In effect, it means that the Home Office is now widening the range of matters to be dealt with by the director general, without any reference to the House. That is always a danger. It is important to raise points of order when that happens because we should retain accountability for those executive agencies, particularly on a matter concerning a tragic suicide in a prison, when it appears as though the prison authorities were trying to cover up—with the connivance, I am afraid, of the Minister.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have had no indication of the matter that he has raised on a point of order and therefore I do not happen to have Hansard of 25 March 1993 in front of me. The hon. Gentleman may like to pursue the matter further with the Home Secretary, or perhaps he could seek advice from the Table Office. He knows that I do not give advice about procedure across the Floor of the House. If he does not wish to follow my suggestions, I should be very willing to see him to consider what I can do about the matter.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you rule regularly that statements by Ministers are not a matter for you, unless you are notified, and then, obviously, the House is informed. I should simply like to ask your advice, because, today, the news has contained general reports of the large police presence at the proposed M11 route in east London.
In the past, when an incident has got out of control and led to injuries or death, it is then the subject of a statement before the House. I seek your straightforward advice on the best way to try to get the issue of the M11 route raised before problems arise rather than after. The problem is that,

if we wait for the next Home Office or Transport questions, the event will be over. When would be the best opportunity to raise such matters while the events are still current?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is asking for procedural advice. I have just made it clear that I do not give procedural advice. Tomorrow happens to be Thursday; perhaps he should look at the business for Thursday.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you consider re-examining the practice of giving private responses to hon. Members on issues of privilege? I shall not go into the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), but when you rule in private, by implication, unless hon. Members ask my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member who raises an issue of privilege, the rest of the House is denied that response. However, a public interest issue may well arise out of the action taken by that organisation in regard to the 17 Members of Parliament concerned. Will you reflect on my request and consider it?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Speaker of the House has total authority over matters of privilege. It would be a complete departure if the entire House were to be informed of the ruling. If the hon. Gentleman and others are seeking to change that, they must use the normal channels.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that that is your position, but there is clearly a public interest issue. It is alleged that 17 hon. Members are affected by an individual organisation. Surely the wider public have a right to know, even though, as Speaker of the House, you may feel that your responsibility remains only to my hon. Friend.

Madam Speaker: I cannot make a statement on those matters, but if hon. Members who raise them were to reflect, they might find other methods by which they could bring them to the public's attention.

Assistance for Local Authority Leaseholders

Mr. John Denham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities to identify residential properties of which the authority owns the freehold and which the leaseholders find hard to sell; to require local authorities to make available mortgage guarantees to assist the sale of certain local authority leaseholds of residential property; to enable local authorities to repurchase the leases of certain leaseholds of residential properties; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is a rescue plan for some 70,000 home owners who, to all intents and purposes, are trapped in former council fiats. More than half those who were induced or seduced to buy under the right to buy are or will be living in properties which simply cannot be sold. That is ironic because the majority of people who bought flats did so because they thought that it would be easier to move by selling than through council transfer lists.
One couple in my constituency bought their tower block flat for cash in 1981 and have since made it into a model home. They have been trying to sell that flat for several years. They have dropped the asking price by 50 per cent. and they have found several potential buyers, but not one of those buyers can get a mortgage—not even a 60 per cent. mortgage.
Another constituent bought a one-bedroom flat in a medium-rise block in my constituency in 1988. She subsequently married and started a family; she needs to move to a bigger home. She has found potential buyers, but not one can obtain a mortgage, not even from the bank which currently mortgages the property.
Mortgage lenders have red-lined all high-rise and most medium-rise blocks of flats. On that basis, we can confidently predict that 70,000 households will face the same problem in the future. Not only can the owners not sell, but many face higher service charges than they first expected.
The Conservative Government bear a heavy responsibility for that crisis. That is why my Bill requires them to act. The Government must not continue to shuffle off responsibility on to local authorities that have neither the full legal powers nor the resources to deal with the problem.
The Government promoted the right to buy to flat owners with quite extraordinary irresponsibility. The latest leaflet from the Department of the Environment warns potential buyers of possible high service charges and mortgage problems. But that only emphasises the Government's failure to issue those warnings when today's victims were buying their homes.
Councils such as Sheffield and Norwich which attempted to highlight the likely problems were overruled and overridden by Ministers, who threatened to step in and enforce the right to buy. Building societies such as the Halifax which predicted today's problems in writing to the Government in 1985 and again in 1987 were ignored. Government restrictions on service charge levels for the first five or 10 years of home ownership had the effect of disguising from potential buyers the likely cost of owning a council leasehold.
My Bill is intended to provide a long-overdue way out of this nightmare for the people affected by it and I have

tried to base it on four clear principles. First, there must be a national scheme and a national solution. The extent of the problem varies considerably from one local authority to another. It simply would not be realistic to ask individual local authorities to meet their own local problems from their own resources.
Secondly, wherever possible, current leaseholders must be assisted to sell their homes on the private market at a fair market value. Thirdly, any public costs involved must be kept to a reasonable minimum and represent good value for money. Fourthly, no scheme should unfairly take resources away from the urgent task of improving and repairing the homes of current and future council tenants.
It is on the basis of these four principles that I have drawn up the Bill. It will bring together the existing but inadequate powers of local authorities in a national and nationally funded scheme. In the first instance, local authorities would be required to draw up a scheme to identify flats which are unlikely to attract mortgage finance. Those schemes would need to be agreed with the Secretary of State. With the approval of the Secretary of State local authorities would then be required to offer a mortgage guarantee for all or part of the capital value of the flat. However, it is important to ensure that a mortgage lender who refused a loan based just on the nature of the property would be subject to action by extending the powers of the building societies ombudsman.
If in the end the guarantee were called, the local authority would have the choice of taking the property back into its own stock to let to someone from its waiting list, or of being reimbursed by the Government for the cost of meeting the guarantee.
Such an approach would help tens of thousands of leaseholders in the coming years and, by making properties marketable once again, would allow the price of those properties to be established at a level which reflected the relatively high service charges that council leaseholds are always likely to attract. But I also recognise that there will be some flats which, because of their structural condition and future repair costs, will probably never attract buyers, so the Bill also proposes that local authorities identify those properties and be enabled by the Government to repurchase them at a price reflecting any original discount.
That again should be funded by Government. The question of cost is bound to be raised, but in this case the logic of using local authority capital receipts, which were obtained by selling those flats in the first place, for the purpose of getting people out of this nightmare is unquestionable.
I do not believe that anyone denies that the problem exists or that it will be identified on an increasingly wide scale over the coming years, and the support that I have had for the Bill from hon. Members from Thurrock, Lewisham, Hampstead and Highgate, Waltham Forest, Greenwich, Sheffield, Plymouth and other parts of the country indicates the number who are experiencing these problems at first hand in their constituency advice surgeries.
It is now time for the Government to act. The problem has been dumped on local authorities for too long. There must be a national scheme, which should be funded and underwritten nationally. The Government must be prepared to stand up to the building societies. This Bill will enable the Government to do all three things.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Denham, Mr. Clive Betts, Mr. Nick Raynsford, Mr. Mike Gapes, Mr.


Clive Soley, Ms Tessa Jowell, Ms Glenda Jackson, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr Neil Gerrard, Mr. Keith Hill, Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Mr. David Jamieson.

ASSISTANCE FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY LEASEHOLDERS

Mr. John Denham accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities to identify residential properties of which the authority owns the freehold and which the leaseholders find hard to sell; to require local authorities to make available mortgage guarantees to assist the sale of certain local authority leaseholds of residential property; to enable local authorities to repurchase the leases of certain leaseholds of residential properties; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 April, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

Orders of the Day — Channel Tunnel

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move,

That the draft Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to provide the legal framework for measures to protect the channel tunnel and international train services from acts of terrorism. It seeks to do that in two ways: first, by creating a number of new and serious offences against the safety of the tunnel and trains, and secondly by providing the Secretary of State with powers to direct the concessionaires—Eurotunnel—and operators of channel tunnel trains to take measures to protect the tunnel, trains and related facilities against acts of violence. In both respects, the order applies to the channel tunnel a security framework very similar to that which applies to the civil aviation and maritime transport sectors.
Although the tunnel was built with private money and will be run as a commercial enterprise, the British and French Governments have an important role in ensuring that its security is satisfactorily provided and organised. Article 5 of the 1986 channel tunnel treaty called for a
special arrangement between the two Governments on security matters".
That arrangement has been made. The terms require each Government to ensure that the security of the fixed link, including the terminal areas, other sites and essential services, is satisfactorily provided and organised, and that the responsibilities are properly defined and exercised.
Thus, while the two Governments seek to co-ordinate policy, tunnel security is a matter for each Government separately. On the French side, it is normal for transport security to be undertaken by state agencies. In France—in the case of the tunnel, railway stations and freight terminals to be served by channel tunnel trains—most security functions will be undertaken by the police de l' air et frontières and the douanes, or customs, although the operators will provide much of the security infrastructure and equipment.
In the United Kingdom, the responsibility for security of all modes of transport rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, it is established United Kingdom practice to place a duty on the transport operator to put the necessary security procedures and facilities in place. In the field of civil aviation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gives directions, under the Aviation Security Act 1982 and the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, to airlines and airport operators, requiring them to carry out specified security measures. The same applies in the case of ports, ferries and shipping lines, under the 1990 Act.
The intention of the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order is to place Eurotunnel, British Rail and, in due course, British Rail's private-sector successors on the same legal footing. Each of those transport sectors is quite different from the others, and security arrangements must be tailored to suit operating circumstances and the nature of the threat; but the legal framework can and should be very similar.
Eurotunnel, British Rail and the French railway network—SNCF—have submitted their detailed security proposals to the two Governments, in accordance with article 5 of the 1986 treaty and clause 23 of the associated concession agreement. This order will provide the means of implementing and enforcing those arrangements in the United Kingdom under section 11 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. In the course of drafting the order, Eurotunnel and British Rail were consulted about its terms and about the directions that the Secretary of State expects to make.
I should like to make one further point before referring briefly to the order itself. A police presence at the Folkestone terminal will be provided by the Kent constabulary, but it will be concerned primarily with law and order and not with the provision of protective security, which is the responsibility of Eurotunnel. In the event of a serious security incident, the Kent police would, of course, respond. The British Transport police, supported by the local police force, will fulfil the same role at the Waterloo international station and at Ashford international station when it opens, as well as at other stations and freight terminals throughout the country serviced by channel tunnel trains.
It may be helpful if I focus on the main provisions of the order and say a little about how they will operate in practice. The substance of the measure is contained in parts II and III.
Part II creates a number of new offences against the safety of the channel tunnel and channel tunnel trains. These are serious offences, including hijacking, seizing control of the tunnel system, destroying or damaging channel tunnel trains or the tunnel system, and other acts likely to endanger safety, including the making of threats. All of the offences created in part II provide that a person found guilty will be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life—in each case, the same as the corresponding offence under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. Under article 9, proceedings for an offence under part II can be brought only by or with the consent of the Attorney-General.
The primary purpose of part III is to provide for the protection of channel tunnel trains and related facilities, the tunnel system, persons and property from acts of violence. It does this principally by giving the Secretary of State powers to direct Eurotunnel, train operators and others to put in place appropriate physical security measures and to carry out sensible security procedures.
Articles 14 and 15 are of particular importance. They enable the Secretary of State to require searches of traffic to be carried out before it may enter the tunnel system or board a channel tunnel train. This includes searches of passengers and their property, goods, the trains and the tunnel system itself. Outside the tunnel system, it includes also searches of premises used in connection with channel tunnel trains, such as Waterloo international terminal, including people and property on those premises.

Sir David Mitchell: Will searches of trains coming to the United Kingdom be carried out by French authorities or by British authorities operating on French soil?

Mr. Freeman: The responsibility for searching any train, whether passenger or freight, travelling through France and entering the channel tunnel will rest with the French authorities. In the case of traffic travelling through

the United Kingdom to the channel tunnel, all passengers and freight will be liable to search at the channel tunnel site. Anyone with freight or a car catching the Euro shuttle will be liable to be searched at Cheriton by security officers. All railway passengers will be liable to be searched at Waterloo international or at other appropriate points of embarkation. All British Rail freight will be liable to be searched at the point of origin—the point at which the container is packed—or at the consignor's premises if the consignor is an approved channel tunnel freight forwarder. I think that that should answer my hon. Friend's question. If not, however, I shall be happy to give way again.

Sir David Mitchell: What I am anxious to know is whether British customs or other officials will search cars and other vehicles before they enter the system on their way to the United Kingdom. I am thinking of customs, security and animal-health checks.

Mr. Freeman: There are three separate issues in that. The order deals with security—the threat from terrorism; it specifically does not cover customs, immigration or animal health. Those are separate issues. The order deals with security searches, and the responsibility for them will rest with the French rather than the British authorities for trains entering the tunnel from Sangatte.
I shall write to my hon. Friend to give him fuller details about customs and immigration procedures and animal health, but the general principle that applies is that the French and British authorities will carry out the same functions in their respective countries as they would carry out for airline or ferry passengers moving between Britain and France. Although the question that my hon. Friend asked is not relevant to the order, if he tables a question to me I shall give him a clear answer. It will be for the convenience of the House if my answer appears in the Official Report.
Finally, it may help the House if I speak briefly about the preparations for opening the tunnel. That is the context in which the order is set. The plan is that Eurotunnel will open the tunnel on 6 May, when Her Majesty the Queen and President Mitterrand will officiate at ceremonies. Eurotunnel's freight and passenger services are matters for the company; it will provide a private sector service and it will announce when the freight and passenger shuttles will run.
Scheduled rail passenger services run by British Rail, SNCF and the Belgian state railway will commence this summer. Delivery of the train sets is progressing well, and testing is under way. Services from Waterloo, the only station where passengers will be able to join a train, will take about three hours to reach Paris, and the Government believe that that will offer a competitive service in terms of both convenience and pricing compared with the alternative modes of transport.
I can confirm that Railfreight Distribution is ready to commence services as soon as the tunnel is open for business. It is ready to go now. The intention is that by the end of the year about 11 freight trains a day will run in each direction, and in due course that number could increase to the capacity of the tunnel, which is 35 freight trains a day in both directions. Class 92 locos, which have been ordered by British Rail, should be available by the end of the year.
I plan to lay imminently the regulations concerning the concession that 44-tonne lorries with containers or swap bodies should be allowed in this country if they are moving to or from rail terminals—

Mr. John Gunnell: As the Minister has gone into the wider question of opening the facilities, and as freight facilities through the tunnel will be available in the relatively near future, has any firm decision been made on the freight terminal arrangements for west and south Yorkshire?

Mr. Freeman: British Rail has now signed agreements in connection with the Wakefield freight terminal in west Yorkshire. Its construction will depend largely on public funding, partly from the local authority concerned—as the hon. Gentleman will know, it has taken action by selling one asset and retaining the cash in the expectation of making a contribution. Other funding rests with central Government to comment upon and support, and that proposal is with me now.
When the hon. Gentleman mentions south Yorkshire I assume that he is referring to the terminal at Doncaster, which may or may not require more modest public sector funding to support it. My understanding is that it was initiated and made progress on the assumption that essentially it would be financed without European or British Government funding. British Rail has committed itself to Wakefield and not to Doncaster. That may change, as has been speculated on a number of occasions, but it has not changed so far. We shall certainly keep the situation under review.
I answered a question yesterday, which may help the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. It was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) and it concerned the intensification of use and noise on existing freight lines. I made the point that we accept that the Land Compensation Act 1973 has relevance to trains—especially freight trains—which work existing British Rail lines, where new work has been undertaken. It is a matter of legal interpretation and I simply draw the attention of the House to that answer.
I confirm that it is the intention that day and night services beyond London, principally up the east and west coast main lines, but including services to the west country and Wales, will enter service by the end of next year.
If there are points raised in the debate, I shall be happy to seek to answer them. The Government believe that the channel tunnel creates a marvellous opportunity for business men and for passengers in Britain who seek to go abroad for business or leisure. That it has been built and is ready for business is a great achievement. It will greatly benefit the rail system for passengers and freight and the order helps safeguard the tunnel and the traffic which will use it. We wish the channel tunnel well.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Let me start by making it plain that I strongly support the channel tunnel and I hope that it will be a success. I speak for most on the Opposition Benches, possibly not all, but I am sure that the same applies to those on the Conservative

Benches. We want to see that the tunnel is a success, that it brings maximum benefits to Britain and that those benefits are not confined to the south-east.
Clearly, if the tunnel is to be a success, it must be secure and safe. It is difficult to separate security from safety, although we recognise that the order is mainly concerned with security and security from terrorists. I suppose that the channel tunnel is the prestige engineering project of the remaining part of the century—perhaps not so much for France, but certainly for Britain—and it commands a great deal of public attention. As it attracts such attention, it is likely to attract terrorists and slightly potty attention-seekers who may threaten it.

Mr. Peter Snape: You mean politicians.

Mr. Dobson: Only politicians on the Government Benches. However, in view of their general ineffectiveness, they could not blow up a tunnel.
We need a secure channel tunnel system and therefore we need a legal framework for it. The order provides that legal framework and I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks and for supplying briefing material. The general idea is that the approach is comparable to the security measures that apply to air and sea safety. However, the situations are not strictly comparable, an issue to which the hon. Member for Basingstoke may have been referring. While it is equally possible to blow up an aircraft, a ship and a train in a tunnel, it is impossible to blow up the air or the sea.
The order may prove to be adequate as far as it goes. It is an effort to bring the law into line with current developments and to cope with current threats. The present body of the law is not satisfactory.
It is commonplace in all systems of security that they are as strong as their weakest link. Besides the legal provisions, we need physical security measures such as adequate perimeter fencing. More importantly, we must ensure that the security system is in the hands of staff who are properly trained and adequate for the task. Without that, the system will be almost bound to fail because those who will seek to subvert it will look for the weakest point and eventually find it. We must consider, and continue to consider, the parts that may be the least secure and the arrangements that may lead to bother.
We must consider the relationship between the Kent police and the French authorities, which will be responsible, as I understand it, for the tunnel and the terminals. We must ensure that the liaison between themn is satisfactory to us and to them so that they both feel secure about the respective arrangements.
The British Transport police will be responsible for the security of the rest of the line, for the Waterloo terminal and, as I understand it, any other terminal in London—eventually, presumably, St. Pancras—and also for the freight terminals around the country. Is the Minister satisfied that the wide experience and expertise of the British Transport police, which they have acquired over the years, are being made available to the Kent police, that the Kent police are making proper use of it and that they will maintain adequate relations?
In an age in which terrorism is rife, many judgments must be made on how to respond to threats or warnings. They require assessment by some human being somewhere in the chain of command. Hundreds of warnings are


received about threats to the security of the railway and underground system in London. Stations are closed in response to those warnings on only a few occasions, because an individual somewhere near the top of the chain of command assesses all the information available and feels sufficiently secure to decide that it is safe not to close one or more stations in the system. If that person does not feel satisfied and secure, he closes the station.
For such a person in the chain of command to be satisfied with anything to do with the channel tunnel, he will have to be satisfied that at all stages and in all places in Britain and France, the proper procedures have been followed and the buildings and rolling stock have been properly protected and inspected. Most importantly, that person must be satisfied that the staff were properly vetted before they were appointed, are properly accredited and properly trained and have been properly supervised. If that is not the case and he does not feel secure, on receiving some warning, that person may have to take it more seriously and order the closing of the tunnel to ensure that people are safe. He must feel confident that the system is working properly.
Problems may arise. At the moment, the people in the British Transport police who make such decisions have confidence in the system because they are accustomed to working with British Rail, London Underground Ltd. and their own staff. With regard to the tunnel, they will have to feel secure that the arrangements made by the Kent police and the French police are satisfactory.
The Minister has not touched on something that is quite possible under the order—the contracting out of some of the security duties to private sector security firms. A feeling of security and safety is crucial to the success of the tunnel. If the Minister and Eurotunnel want to contract out security duties to people like Group 4, they can write off any thought of profits because no one will use the tunnel if such people are involved. The Minister and Eurotunnel must stick with the British Transport police—the BTP—and others of our police forces. They must not try to save money by contracting out the basic duties of the state and the organs of the state. That is why we believe that no one other than the BTP should be involved in such matters all over the system in Britain. It seems that the responsibility of the British Transport police will range from the tunnel up to, and including, the Waterloo terminal.
What about the arrangements for freight and the security of freight terminals? As my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) pointed out, it is far from clear whether some of the terminals will ever exist. The terminal in Wakefield that the Minister confidently proclaimed was going ahead is but a theory at the moment. We do not know what security arrangements are being made there.
The House must be satisfied that there will be proper security arrangements wherever freight is assembled. If that is not the case, the well-informed terrorist will be able to load something on to the freight train, time it properly and explode it in the tunnel. As I said at the outset, the strength of any security system depends on the strength of its weakest link. If terrorists can gain access because of shoddy and slipshod approaches to security in parts of the country well away from the tunnel, they will exploit those arrangements.
Does the Minister intend that the Secretary of State should exercise his power to require restricted zone status on all or part of the freight terminals around the country?

Given that, as a result of the Government's obsession with the private sector, some freight terminals may be privately owned, will the Minister guarantee that the BTP will have the right of entry and search in respect of all those terminals and that there will be no question of a challenge to their authority in that respect? Will the Minister guarantee that there will be secure perimeters? Will he guarantee that staff will be properly vetted and that no dodgy outfits will supply security guards for those premises? People inside and outside the House, and everyone who wants to use the channel tunnel, must be interested in getting reassuring and honest answers to those questions.
We realise that there are problems about public disclosure of certain security measures and arrangements. However, security is related to safety. When it comes to safety, there is an obligation to disclose, to the public and to those who are interested, what safety arrangements exist. I do not believe that that duty of disclosure has been met by Eurotunnel, by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority or by the Government. There has been far too much secrecy and much of that secrecy has been bad for the tunnel's reputation. It has not protected the reputation of the tunnel. I have always believed in the old but good saying, "Tell the truth and shame the devil."
There is also concern, among people who are bothered about such things, about the independence of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority. The authority will have authorised the safety system and it might then supervise it. It will not be keen to point out shortcomings in the system that it has helped bring into being.
Information on safety tests has been kept secret. It was extremely foolish of Eurotunnel not to allow television cameras in during the quite proper and deliberate overloading of the electricity circuits when one of the insulators collapsed. The television cameras should have been there to show that a great deal of damage was not caused. I cannot understand why the television cameras were kept out.
If what Eurotunnel was saying was true, it would have been better to say that what happened was a minor incident and almost an automatic part of the testing. Instead, Eurotunnel created an aura of secrecy and all sorts of harum-scarum stories have been told and that is to the disadvantage of the company and to all of us who believe that the tunnel should be working safely as soon as possible.
As the Minister knows, there has been disquiet all along about the decision that drivers and passengers should travel with their vehicles on the shuttles. There is also still disquiet about the open-sided wagons which are intended to carry lorries. They are not thought to be very safe. I have received expressions of concern from the Fire Brigades Union—the FBU—about aspects of fire safety in the tunnel.
People may say that the FBU has a vested interest, and it does. Members of the FBU will have to enter the tunnel and fight an inferno if one occurs. Everyone else will be running away, but FBU members will be entering the tunnel to try to put things right. The Government should have taken more notice of the Fire Brigades Union than of some alleged safety experts, sitting comfortably in their offices, who will be sitting comfortably there if there is a catastrophe.
At the moment, fire fighting arrangements are to be provided by the Kent fire brigade. As I understand it, it


would be possible for Eurotunnel to provide its own private fire fighting arrangements under the law as it stands. I do not think that that is sound. It would damage the reputation of the tunnel and the Minister should guarantee that the Government will not permit Eurotunnel to use any fire services other than the Kent fire service on this side of the channel and its opposite number in France.
We must also consider the arrangements for the control of goods carried through the tunnel. What will happen to hazardous substances? As all hon. Members will be aware, there is no hazchem code in Europe. As that code has been very effective here, what efforts have the Government been taking to extend it to Europe? I hope that the Government are not back-tracking on the code or regarding it as a burden on business. It is a good idea, it adds to safety and it helps business.
I accept that I have referred to safety matters, but they affect security. If the system is intrinsically less safe than it might be, what might have been a relatively minor incident could turn into a catastrophe as a result of some inherently unsafe aspect of the operation of the tunnel.
We do not have enough information to judge the order entirely, partly because safety studies have been kept secret. As I understand it, Eurotunnel has still to present the full safety case to the safety authority. I understand that it has yet to carry out the full dummy runs with live passengers. The safety case cannot be approved by the safety authority until those dummy runs have been carried out to the safety authority's satisfaction.
I am told that similar runs have not yet been carried out in respect of the shuttle. It is getting rather late. If those tests are not carried out in the next few months, it will be very difficult for the authority to stand up and say that it is not satisfied when that might defer for a month or so the opening of the tunnel. Sufficient progress in that regard has not been made.
Recent delays in the commercial use of the tunnel are as yet largely unexplained by Eurotunnel. Whenever something happens and a swift, honest and straightforward explanation is not proffered, that damages the tunnel's reputation. The best way to calm people's fears is to tell the truth and get it out as quickly as possible.
I believe, and have always believed, that the channel tunnel should be a great boon to this country, giving us access to the benefits of the European railway network. That would be of advantage to those who want to travel to Europe and to those who want to shift their freight there. If the tunnel is going to work, it is necessary absolutely to convince potential users that it is secure and safe.
I welcome the order, but I am not entirely convinced that it is fully satisfactory. The Minister must, in all honesty, answer several questions to the House and to the people who desperately want to travel through the tunnel and send their goods through it.

Sir Roger Moate: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) understandably made the point that it is very hard for the Opposition and, indeed, others to judge the adequacy of security and safety arrangements for the tunnel. I underline the hon. Gentleman's comment; we all have to accept what is being offered to us. The British public and others who will use

the tunnel must place their faith in the safety arrangements. The order has hon. Members' agreement and support. The Chamber is very quiet—it is almost empty. My right hon. Friend the Minister will have little satisfaction in knowing that if the Government have got it wrong and if anything should go wrong, the Chamber will be very full indeed. A tremendous amount is at stake and there is great public interest in making sure that the Government have got it right.
The hon. Gentleman said that he supports the concept of the channel tunnel and that he wishes it success. I am not a supporter of the channel tunnel, but I wish it success. Many years ago, before our first application to join the European Community, somebody said to me:
What is this ditch that us from France divides? 'Tis but a moat.
I wish that a major geological fault had been found in the channel which would have prevented us from even dreaming about the tunnel linking the continent with the United Kingdom. However, the tunnel is built. One of my fundamental objections to it was and remains that the main users will be heavy lorries and many motor cars which will use it as a rolling motorway. That will inflict considerable environmental damage on the county of Kent. The major source of tunnel revenue will be traffic using our roads and that short stretch of tunnel as a rolling motorway.
It is obviously vital to have got safety and security right. I am aware that a tremendous amount of work has been done by the Department of Transport and by authorities in Kent in ensuring that ambulance, fire and police arrangements are adequate. I have the utmost faith that they have got them as right as they possibly can. I have no wish to intrude upon the continuing negotiations to get the arrangements right. Although my constituents and all the people of Kent want to make sure that services are well provided, they want reassurance that the costs of providing such services will be borne fully by the channel tunnel authorities. I would welcome such reassurance from my right hon. Friend on that point.
Another point that is just as important as cost is the capacity of the services to deal with an emergency in the tunnel without overstraining available resources for my constituents and other people in the county. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to comment on that point in particular.
Let us consider, for example, ambulance services. I have no doubt that training will be adequate to cope with emergencies in or at the end of the tunnel, but it would not be acceptable if, in an emergency, many ambulances from the county were suddenly taken away from their normal duties and other emergencies could not be covered. Will my right hon. Friend give a specific assurance to me and to the people of Kent that they will not be deprived of emergency ambulance, police and fire cover in the event of anything going seriously wrong in the tunnel? I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand the importance of that matter in terms of cost and capacity and that he will reassure us accordingly.
I now raise another small point on which I doubt whether we will be able to have a full and satisfactory answer now. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made a very important point about bomb scares. One hopes that the security arrangements will prevent real security problems, but the biggest problems will be threats. If the authorities are to take a threat seriously, they will have to close the tunnel and the ensuing congestion at either end


and the chaos would be great. As the hon. Gentleman said, there will be the problem of potty individuals issuing threat after threat. It will require considerable judgment on the part of people in control to decide when such individuals are potty and when they are serious.
My right hon. Friend mentioned penalties for threats and said that life imprisonment could be the maximum sentence. The travelling public need to know a little more about just how the channel tunnel authorities will try to prevent frequent disruption of traffic in the face of such threats. I suspect that the answer is to emphasise the nature of penalties and the steps that will be taken to trace the idiots who make such threats. We must be serious about imposing very tough penalties, because the consequences for the travelling public will be great. Reassurance on that point would be most helpful.
My right hon. Friend mentioned that people and cars would be liable to search and that freight could be searched at certain points. Will being liable to search mean that people will be regularly searched? Will there be an automatic search process as is applied when one travels on an aircraft or, indeed, when one enters the Palace of Westminster? Will there be automatic scanning? One hopes that people will not be delayed and subjected to rigorous searches, but it is obvious that there must be some security checks.
This matter is hardly relevant to the order, but I now refer to my right hon. Friend's parliamentary answer on the intensification of noise on existing routes which will be used for freight transport. I certainly welcome progress in helping people on such routes, but, unfortunately, the problem always lies in the small print. Even my right hon. Friend's answer on that point today referred to where new works had taken place. Thank heavens my constituency will not be affected in that way—I hope. Existing routes in my constituency could be affected, but they are not designated as freight routes. I feel strongly that we must not be too legalistic or small-minded. If we are going to make the tunnel work, we have to be fairly generous with compensation arrangements and noise insulation for routes that are affected by intensification of use, but which have not necessarily been created by extensive new works in the legal sense.
My right hon. Friend mentioned 44-tonne vehicles and the order to allow them to travel on roads to the freight terminals. I am very suspicious of that. I voted against an increase in lorry weights and I will do so again. I can understand the argument for 44-tonne vehicles going only to terminals, but I should like to know how tough we will be on restricting routes to freight terminals. I find it difficult to understand, under our system of road transport, how tough we can be in preventing vehicles from using certain routes. Are we satisfied that they will not cross inadequate bridges or that money will be made available to strengthen bridges? I am a great believer in freight routes. Are we to have freight routes and heavy lorry routes and will rules be applied to the 44-tonne vehicles? I fear that that could be the thin end of the wedge and that we might see an order increasing lorry weights more generally.
Of course one welcomes the order. One hopes that the channel tunnel will be a transport success. It is vital that we get the security and safety arrangements right. One hopes that this order contains arrangements that will prove entirely satisfactory.

Mr. Peter Snape: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the order. I have an interest to declare as a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and, for many years, I was the co-chairman of the all-party channel tunnel group.
I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate). Although I agreed with some of what he said, I thought that he was somewhat unrealistic. I understand his good constituency argument that the Government must ensure that, in the event of an accident in the tunnel, the emergency services of Kent should continue to function as if nothing had occurred. Heaven forbid that it should happen, but if a Boeing 747 crashed in Kent at the same time as he had an accident in his car on the M20, there might be some delay before the ambulance arrived to pluck him from the wreckage. What he asked for was unrealistic, although I am sure that it will read well in his local paper.
I agreed with what the hon. Gentleman said about 44-tonne lorries. Like him, I have always voted against heavy goods vehicles during my parliamentary career, such as it is. I have usually been on the losing side in those votes. I would also like to know how the Minister proposes to enforce the Government restriction that 44-tonne vehicles should be used only to and from rail terminals. Like the hon. Member for Faversham, I support lorry routes. If a lorry route went through the middle of his constituency, the hon. Gentleman might change his mind. The enforcement of restrictions on heavy goods vehicles is a difficult problem. We are entitled to some assurances from the Minister about how the restrictions will be enforced.
The hon. Member for Faversham mentioned putting freight on existing rail lines. I should have thought that at least some hon. Members would vaguely support such a policy. The horrific scenario is painted that putting freight on rail will cause enormous noise problems for people living beside railway lines. It has always fascinated me that people who buy houses alongside railway lines promptly write to their Member of Parliament to complain about the noise that trains make. I would be delighted to send the hon. Gentleman a working timetable of British Rail's freight division, as it was called in the 1960s. He will discover that considerably more freight ran on the lines of Kent than today. It consisted mostly of loose-coupled vehicles, which used to clank and rattle along at 25 mph and caused considerably more noise than the roller-bearing airbrake rolling stock that is used today.

Sir Roger Moate: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept that he is being somewhat flippant. He is older than many of my constituents, but even he must recognise that the early 1960s were more than 30 years ago and that things have become quieter. The serious argument, however, is that much of that freight traffic will be travelling at night—freight trains are noisier than many modern passenger trains—causing considerable disturbance, particularly for people who are not used to trains travelling at that time. It is a new disturbance. All that we are asking for is some help through insulation grants.

Mr. Snape: Those grants involve a few thousands of pounds of public money. It is the sort of expenditure that the hon. Gentleman and his party regularly vote against when it is directed at other hon. Members' constituencies.


We should wait and see—I do not accept that trains passing through Kent at night will disturb those who live alongside railway lines. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman has just accused me of flippancy, but now he is having a little giggle. Two major motorways run alongside my constituency, which also contains Bescot marshalling yard. That yard was tipped to be one of the channel tunnel freight terminals, but unfortunately that has not proved to be the case.
In the 20 years that I have represented my constituency, I cannot remember a single complaint about that yard, although wagons regularly shunt up and down it. I receive many complaints about motorway noise because of its all-pervasive nature. Before some of the people for whom the hon. Gentleman speaks rush to judgment about the additional noise of modern freight trains, they should wait to see what happens when those trains are introduced.
It is strange for a prominent member of the Conservative party such as the hon. Gentleman to propose spending public money on a hazard that has not yet occurred. If Labour Members ever called for such expenditure, the cry of the Conservative party would be, "Where is the money coming from?" It seems that plenty of public money is available when hypothetical problems are forecast.
If we go down the road of placing additional costs on rail freight, if I can use that ill-timed simile, there is a danger of increasing costs to such an extent that we shall never achieve the much-vaunted transfer of freight from road to rail. If we make things too expensive, carriers and hauliers will use other methods. I do not know the hon. Gentleman's views on additional road traffic, although he advanced the relevant and valid argument that, if the channel tunnel were used as a shuttle service for cars and heavy goods vehicles, considerably more traffic would be created in his part of the world. But he should bear in mind my argument when he talks about loading additional costs on Britain's much under-utilised railway system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) talked at considerable length about safety. I understand the fears that he expressed, but some of them were exaggerated. Having spent some of my life on the Committees that discussed the two hybrid Bills on the channel tunnel project, and on the Select Committee that considered the project on the last, successful occasion, I can say that a considerable amount of our time was devoted to safety. During the passage of those Bills, we sought and received assurances that the intergovernmental safety committee, to which my hon. Friend referred, would consist of not only railway experts, but representatives of the fire brigade and the police. Those services will be directly involved in safety matters once the great project is completed. We should keep matters in perspective.
The project does not approach the limits of human technology; it does not involve sending people in capsules around the moon. People will be making a train journey that has been made possible by the completion of a great project. The people who say, "You'll never get me down there", are the same people who put their trust in someone else when they climb in a silver tube and fly through the air at 35,000 ft at 400 mph. Given the consequences of

anything going wrong, I know which vehicle I would prefer to be in. The safety level of railways nationwide and worldwide is recognised in the order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to hazardous goods. I understand that the hybrid Bill Committee that gave the go-ahead for the project some years ago received an assurance that goods classed as dangerous would not be allowed through the channel tunnel. If my hon. Friend stands at St. Stephen's entrance, he will see fleets of petrol tankers and other vehicles—which, I hasten to add, are not driven by hon. Members—which carry hazardous materials within yards of the building. We accept those vehicles, despite the fact that there is no signalling system to prevent one from running into another. We should not worry too much about such matters in the context of the orders because petrol tankers and other vehicles that carry hazardous goods will not pass through the tunnel.

Mr. Dobson: I recall my hon. Friend describing in graphic detail the long hours that he spent in Committee discussing the channel tunnel Bill. There is some doubt as to whether the undertakings given about hazardous substances will be complied with. Those undertakings were given to my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Committee because they thought that hazardous substances should not go through the tunnel. Some doubt has now been raised about whether they should be permitted to do so.

Mr. Snape: The assurances to which my hon. Friend refers were given before they were sought. At the outset, we were told that hazardous goods—we attempted to define some of them—would not pass through the tunnel. At the risk of offending my hon. Friend, I must say that I would be fairly relaxed if hazardous goods passed through the tunnel. As a former railway signal man, I would prefer to take my chances on a train passing through the channel tunnel followed by a fleet of tankers because the train would be protected by the signalling system, rather than looking in the mirror of my car while travelling on the M40 and seeing a petrol tanker flying up behind me. The Minister should tell us whether the assurances that we received are still valid today. If so, we may be concerning ourselves unnecessarily.
In debating this order, we must reflect on the fact that we are not talking about a channel tunnel or Eurotunnel, as it is sometimes known. We are talking about three tunnels: a tunnel for trains travelling in one direction, a tunnel for trains travelling in the other direction and a service tunnel. I accept my hon. Friend's point that, in the event of a bomb outrage in the tunnel, considerable damage could be done. However, I understand that to pierce the walls of the tunnel would take something equivalent to the sort of bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki or Hiroshima. We do not envisage terrorist organisations possessing such weapons, or at least getting them into the tunnel.
I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the penalties on people making malicious calls will be severe and will be invoked in the event of their being found guilty of perpetrating such calls. Before I left the railways 20 years ago, it became the fashion to telephone main line railway stations with bomb threats. Initially, because it was a new fashion, the station was invariably closed. However, the British Transport police acquired the expertise to separate the nutcases from the likely genuine calls. I


endorse what my hon. Friend said. I hope that that expertise will be used in this project. Undoubtedly, the sort of sad characters who perpetrate such outrages will be attracted to do so by such a great civil engineering project. We have a much better means of tracing such calls because of the new electronic exchanges. There is nothing like a salutary punishment for the perpetrators who are caught to dissuade other people from behaving in that way.
Those who have been involved at any length with the project will be aware of the question of rabies. I am not sure whether that matter is covered by the terms of the order. A great number of people in this country appear to believe that the continent is full of rabid dogs and foxes. Whether or not it is covered by the order, I hope that the Minister can assure us that that is not the case. I hope that proper precautions will be taken to prevent the spread of rabies to the United Kingdom.
I understand that about 330 frontier control staff are being provided for the complete system, including the Folkestone and Calais terminals. That is a considerable reduction from the 800 or 900 staff originally envisaged. How does that number compare with the number of staff responsible for those matters who are employed by the competition, especially the ferries? I hope that I can take with me Tory Members who espouse a belief in free enterprise and competition. It would be unfair if this great project was hampered by having to meet the costs of an excessive number of security and customs staff, compared with those employed by other modes of transport.
My hon. Friend rightly reminded us of the lack of freight terminal facilities in Yorkshire, let alone the security to protect them. We are in a similar position in the west midlands, although the Minister will probably tell me that the existing Landaur street terminal in Birmingham is sufficient in the short term. Living fairly close to that terminal, I have to tell him that I will not believe him. I give him that warning in advance.
The Hams Hall project has been brought forward. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the project will be completed and up and running—if that is the right term—sooner rather than later because people in the west midlands also wish to benefit from this project.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: My hon. Friend will be aware that, although the Hams Hall freight terminal project has been approved, that approval depends on the completion of the new Birmingham north relief road. That will create a considerable delay and ensure that what my hon. Friend fears most will happen—there Will not be adequate freight rail terminal facilities in the west midlands for a number of years, well after the tunnel is up and running.

Mr. Snape: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I know that the Minister will do his best to respond later. My hon. Friend has emphasised a problem that concerns us greatly. Many of us could not understand why Bescot siding was not chosen as the channel tunnel terminal. Having had only about 120 years to measure it, British Rail has now discovered that it is too small for its purpose. The quicker these matters are resolved and adequate security under the terms of the order is installed, the better it will be for the economy of the west midlands and for the successful running of this great project.
I conclude by saying that I welcome the order and the project. To all those who have expressed fear about

travelling through the tunnel, I can say making five return journeys in a fairly short time along the west coast main line passing through Kilsby tunnel just south of Rugby—as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and I have done—is the equivalent of travelling through the channel tunnel. I have been making the journey for 20 years and my hon. Friend has been doing it for a year or two, and we are relatively unscathed. Although we have aged considerably while we have been here, like the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate), I do not think we can blame that on passing through a tunnel. The project will be an enormous success and I welcome it.

Mr. John Horam: Obviously, the focus of this debate is security, which is an important matter, but I shall touch on the more mundane matter of noise which is a concern to my constituents, as it is to many of my hon. Friends. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) took to task my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) for being so concerned about noise. The hon. Gentleman was asking what people expected if they bought a house next to a railway line.
Are not we all in favour of getting more freight off the roads and on to the railways? Indeed, we are. There is a price to pay for that. It is not a simple matter of people buying a house by a railway line and knowing what they are in for. If the hon. Gentleman came to my constituency and saw the way in which British Rail has taken down trees, shrubs and so on—the protective barrier between the existing railway line and the back of houses, especially when the railway line is on a viaduct and the noise tumbles down to the back gardens in my constituency—he would realise that it is a different matter from simply buying a house next to a railway line and taking what one gets.
It is not a matter of people anticipating a future noise problem, unaware of exactly how bad it will be. The hon. Gentleman may not know this, but British Rail has already undertaken trial runs of freight trains and international passenger trains through south-east London and Kent. My constituents are already aware of the sort of noise that they will have to put up with at night—sometimes it will be? fivefold or tenfold—when the channel tunnel freight trains start in earnest. Therefore, it is not an unanticpated and unknown problem—people are beginning to be aware of it.
I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham the present thinking on the intensification of use of existing lines, as opposed to entirely new railway lines. We know that draft noise regulations affecting this matter are being considered at present, and consultation is taking place.
May I also raise a point that my right hon. Friend may have touched on in a written answer to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley)? I think that the answer was given yesterday or the day before, but it has not yet been printed in Hansard. My right hon. Friend asked about the interpretation of compensation claims under the Land Compensation Act 1973.
My right hon. Friend the Minister may be aware that my constituency, and no doubt others nearby, has recently been flooded with letters from people claiming to be compensation consultants who are saying that people who have houses alongside the line that is to be used for freight


and passenger services for the channel tunnel have a good case for getting compensation under the Act: A letter that my constituents have received—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a free run about noise. This debate is about security.

Mr. Horam: The Minister raised the question of noise in his opening remarks, and suggested that he would be prepared to say something about it.
I conclude by saying that the compensation experts say:
The Act also specifies that the Railway Authority must pay all surveyors and legal fees.
In other words, there is no cost to anyone who takes up the offer made by those people to pursue a claim for compensation against British Rail. I am surprised by that. My right hon. Friend answered an Adjournment debate initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling and said that he would look into the legal basis for the view taken by the compensation experts. I should be grateful if he could refer to that in his winding-up speech.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Some years ago, I was embarrassed on the subject of Eurotunnel in Northern Ireland. A constituent met me and said that he was glad to see that I owned 10 per cent. of Eurotunnel. "Pardon?" I said. He told me that he had read that information in a diary piece in a London newspaper when he had visited London.
I investigated the matter, and discovered that I had incorrectly declared my handful of shares in the company in the Register of Members' Interests. Apparently, an hon. Member is only supposed to register shareholdings if he has 10 per cent. of a company. I have since calculated I own about 1 ft out of the 32 miles of the tunnel. I declare my interest on that basis.
I apologise to the Minister for not being here for his opening speech, but I was delayed and have just flown in from Belfast. It would be foolish for anyone to think that the tunnel will not be a major target for terrorism, and it must be treated in that context.
Will there be the same rigid security controls at the tunnel as there are, for example, at airports for passengers and freight? A person cannot put baggage on an aeroplane unless he gets on the plane. Will a person be able to put baggage on the train going through the Eurotunnel without being on the train as a passenger?
Drivers of freight lorries will not be with their lorries, but in separate compounds. What distance will the drivers be from the lorries? If the distance is considerable, the risk is that an evil minded person could place a bomb in his vehicle and then be quite a distance away from it in a compound of the train.
Eurotunnel was built by a large number of Irish workers from the Republic. I do not want to be seen to be Irish-bashing this afternoon, but it is important that we recognise not only the great contribution made by Irish construction workers, but the fact that, while they were in the south of England, they created their own community. Those workers had their own community activities, their own chaplaincy and, of course, their own Irish pubs. It is not generally known that, at those pubs, there were

considerable collections taken for IRA funds during the construction of the tunnel. That did happen, and has been reported.
I mention that because it is not just Eurotunnel which is operating the system, and many subcontracts have been allocated. I have read of two that have gone to southern Irish firms. The catering has been subcontracted to an excellent catering firm from Dublin called Bewley's Anyone who was at the Welsh match last Saturday week may have thoroughly enjoyed a cup of coffee in Bewley's in Grafton street. None the less, it is a southern Irish firm. I think that a subsidiary called Campbell's will be doing the catering for Eurotunnel.
I understand that another southern Irish firm may be about to be allocated the contract for duty-free shopping.

Mr. Wilson: It has been.

Mr. Taylor: That has taken place. Will there be proper screening and vetting, not just of the staff employed by Eurotunnel, but of all the staff employed by subcontractors in catering, shop sales and other matters connected to the operation of the tunnel?
The Eurotunnel is a magnificent project, and the civil engineering and construction industry deserves congratulations. I hope that the tunnel brings benefits not just to the south of England, but to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Sir Alastair Morton, the chairman of Eurotunnel—I say this as a shareholder—deserves congratulations on his determination to see the project through to a successful conclusion.

Sir David Mitchell: I start by saying to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that I ceased to be the hon. Member for Basingstoke 10 years ago. He is that much out of date.
I raised earlier the matters of customs and animal health, as well as security. My right hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that the order was concerned only with security, and that he would write to me on the other matters.
There ought to be close co-operation between those who carry out searches of vehicles to ensure that there are no rabid animals—or non-rabid animals, such as family pets—being smuggled in cars, and those who carry out animal health checks. Those concerned with customs should work in close co-operation with those who are involved in security. There are different skills involved, but a sense of alertness and awareness is needed, and all those functions ought to be closely linked.
I do not know whether the checks will carried out in the same building or in the open air. Those involved should be linked by radio telephone, and I regard it as being of considerable importance that they should each have some understanding of the others' work. That is not to decry the expertise that is particularly required in security. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take that on board.
I agree with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East about those who fear travelling in the tunnel, and who talk about claustrophobia. I have asked people who express that view whether they had ever travelled from Sloane square to King's Cross, as that is just about equivalent to the length of time they would be travelling through the Eurotunnel. They do that daily, without a murmur of worry


or concern, but they appear to believe that they will suffer from claustrophobia if they spend the same amount of time in the channel tunnel.
I should also like to congratulate, through my right hon. Friend, all those who worked so hard behind the scenes to ensure that safety and security have the absolute priority. I wish my right hon. Friend, and the tunnel, great success.

Mr. John Gunnell: I rise to make a quick point about the costs of the service, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) and by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape).
It is clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House take security seriously and that we are anxious to have a first-class security service for the tunnel. Obviously, the quality of the service depends on the money and personnel that we are willing to put into it to carry out the tasks. I want to ask some questions about the distribution of the costs of the service.
It is clear that the service will have to be co-ordinated and that there will have to be some unity between the security on each side of the channel and between the United Kingdom security services provided in the tunnel, at the freight and passenger terminals around the country and on the line. The costs of security in the tunnel will be borne by Eurotunnel, but were the terminals or stations come into private ownership, the costs will undoubtedly be borne by the owners of those sites. I am worried about the costs that will apply to the line as a whole. I assume that those costs will be absorbed by Railtrack. I assume that Railtrack, through the franchising director, will have the job of sorting out where those costs fall.
I ask the Minister to ensure that the costs that apply to the line are not spread generally around the costs of Railtrack. He will know that we have had a considerable shock in the past few hours in the revelation of the costs that Railtrack will seek to impose, in my case in West Yorkshire. The Minister said that, on privatisation, there would be an increase of some 50 per cent. in the costs. As I understand it, the charges have now been multiplied by a factor of four. I hope to raise that matter with the Minister separately.
It is important that the costs of safety, which ought to be high because the channel tunnel must be a quality service, are borne by that service and not by users of the rail system as a whole.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I endorse the final point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell). The seriousness of yesterday's announcement of Railtrack charges has not yet begun to soak in, but I assure the Minister that it will be well advertised long before the charges take effect.
I should say to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) that one of the most attractive advertisements for the channel tunnel that I have heard so far is that Bewley's will provide the catering. That will ensure a good cup of coffee and soda bread when one arrives at the terminal at either end. It is a remarkable achievement that Aer Rianta, the Irish state duty-free firm has snatched the duty-free rights from under the nose of other companies on both sides of the channel tunnel. It just shows what a

state-owned enterprise can do when it is given the freedom to operate commercially outside its own territory. What a slap in the face to Conservative Members that every time they go into the channel tunnel they will pass through the Irish Government's duty-free shops. That is what I call good public enterprise, and it is a pity that the Government despise it in the way that they do.
We are here, as I am sure that you will remind me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss security in the tunnel. We are here almost on a technicality. It is pointed out at the end of the order that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments accepted the advice of the legal adviser that the existing orders had to be revised to take account of the new circumstances of the channel tunnel. For example, paragraph 4 creates a new offence of hijacking a channel tunnel train. That opens up all sorts of mental images—a sort of "Take me to Cuba". If one did that with an accent, it would probably be racist.
On the surface, the order is a technicality, but, as the debate has shown, there are many serious worries to be taken into account. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and others have done, it is proper to place the legitimate worries on record. I am sure that they will be read and considered, and that the necessary steps will be taken. There is no question of doubting the good faith of any of the parties involved. It is in everyone's interest to get it right.
It is important to stress that, in raising our worries, the priority for Opposition Members and, I am sure, for Conservative Members is that there should be no impediment to the success of the tunnel project. We want it to succeed. We want to encourage people to use it. We want it to be established. We also want to get rid of initial understandable but irrational fears about the safety of using the tunnel. It is immensely in everyone's interests that the necessary precautions are put in place to prevent anything from happening that would undermine public confidence in the tunnel.
It is human nature that people have fears. We are dealing with the concept of going into an enclosed space—with something hitherto unknown to many people. It is interesting that a high proportion of people say that they would not use the tunnel. Of course, as with everything that is new, they will use it. Many of them will use it and, having used it once, will use it often. That will be the case only if the tunnel can operate in a safe and incident-free manner. It is immensely in everyone's interest, not least the operator's interest, that that should be achieved. It is in that spirit that we hold the debate tonight. Let us recognise the problems, if they exist. Let us make sure that proper precautions are taken. Let us get it absolutely right.
In the context that I have set out, it is important to note that the channel tunnel is probably the first tunnel of its scale which has been built in the age of the terrorist. It has been built at a time when everyone is aware of the problems that could arise. The necessary safeguards have been built in. I hope that the necessary human dimensions to back them up will also be built in.
In the short time available, I emphasise one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and other Opposition Members. Let us give British Transport police their proper role in the operation. They are a force of immense experience. They are a public body. They are the right people to do the job and to advise others who do the job. Let there be no suggestion at any point of diluting their responsibility. Let us give them a job to do.
They will work well with Eurotunnel and the other police forces. They have been used for a long time to defend our railway system against terrorism and other security threats. They have an important role to play.
I wish the channel tunnel project well. It is a fantastic opportunity for Britain. I want it to be a great national project. We must get security right if those hopes are to be fulfilled.

Mr. Freeman: I have been asked 23 questions and I have six minutes in which to respond. Obviously, I cannot answer all the questions, but I shall write to all hon. Members.

Mr. Wilson: Eight minutes.

Mr. Freeman: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's mathematics is any good—rather like his politics. I shall deal with the two points that he made in a bipartisan spirit. The first was on the role of the British Transport police. There is no question of the British Transport police having anything other than their present status as a separate national public sector police force responsible for looking after law and order on Britain's railways. That will extend to the channel tunnel services.
The hon. Gentleman was right to mention that matter,but it can assure him that the expertise and services of the British Transport police will be at the disposal of the operators of the channel tunnel services. There is no question of compromising security and their advice will be available to the operators of the freight terminals, which will be restricted zones, and the passenger services.
I look forward to debating Railtrack charges with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North. There is no question of those charges affecting fares, services or investment in any way.

Mr. Wilson: Rubbish.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not read the answer to the parliamentary question. We will return to that matter, and I shall prove to the House, and to everyone's satisfaction, that he is wrong.

Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Freeman: No; I have only five minutes left. Perhaps I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question about West Yorkshire. I can assure him that, as far as the passenger transport executive is concerned, the additional costs of running domestic rail services will be directly and fully recompensed by a special grant and thereafter by increases to the revenue support grant payments.
The Government accept that it will take some time to make European passenger services and rail freight distribution profitable. In the meantime, they will be properly supported—directly by British Rail and indirectly by the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) asked who will finance security. Security costs will be borne by the operator and will not fall upon the citizens of Kent. Will emergency cover for the people of Kent be taken away? No more so than through the operation of the port of Dover. We do not intend to place unnecessary burdens on the ambulance, fire and police services to the

detriment of the citizens of Kent. Who will be liable to a search? I am sure that my hon. Friend will not invite me to go into detail for security reasons, but everyone will be liable to search and searching will be appropriate to the threat. Clearly we must balance security with ease of travel.
On the enforcement of the regulations on 44-tonne lorries travelling to the tunnel, such lorries will not be allowed on the roads of Kent to or through the tunnel. That concession relates to rail terminals; the channel tunnel terminal does not count as such. Rail freight terminals were designed to collect traffic bound for the channel tunnel. Officials from the Department of Transport will enforce the regulations when they check vehicle weights, as they do regularly. A consignment note, showing that the lorry is bound for a freight terminal, will be the appropriate evidence. Lorries with six axles will not cause any more wear and tear on the bridges and roads than is caused at present.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) asked about threats. I assure him that penalties are available under article 8 of the order, and that threats will be pursued vigorously. He also asked about rabies. Schedule 3 of the Channel Tunnel International Arrangements Order 1993 sets out the duties of the concessionaires
to construct and maintain installations, to prevent animals straying into the tunnels",
and imposes requirements on them to ensure, for example, that the tunnels are kept clear of anything likely to attract animals. There will be regular checks to ensure that the requirements are met. My mailbag on the subject is probably a little larger than the hon. Gentleman's and I assure him that we take the matter seriously.
I shall write to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East on the subject of staffing compared to the ferries—I think that he mentioned 330 staff. I shall look into the figures.
On the successor to Landor street, I hope that Hams hall can make progress; it has planning permission, subject to one major constraint. The speed of progress is obviously up to the promoters, but clearly Landor street capacity is limited and it will not be able to provide the west midlands with the service that will be required in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) asked about the regulations for new lines and for the intensification of use. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North having difficulty hearing the answers? In my answer to the parliamentary question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), I said that those people affected by intensification of use have the right, under the Land Compensation Act 1973, in appropriate circumstances to claim compensation. If my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington refers to that answer, I hope that he will find it helpful.
I can tell the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) that security at the tunnel will be comparable to that of airlines and at airports, commensurate with the threat. He did not have the opportunity to hear what I said at the beginning of my remarks, but if he studies the record I hope that he will be satisfied. Yes, Eurotunnel catering and shop staff will be screened.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) asked about close co-operation between the security services, customs and


immigration. That is extremely important and we take my hon. Friend's point. Safe passage is absolutely vital. Under the Channel Tunnel International Arrangements Order 1993 arrangements have been made for juxtaposed frontier customs controls. United Kingdom customs officers may inspect traffic boarding the shuttle trains at the Eurotunnel terminal at Coquelles. I hope that that information is helpful.
I commend the order to the House and will respond to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) with answers to the detailed questions with which he opened the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Pensions and Benefits

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th February be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I understand that it will be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time the following motions:
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.
That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Amendment Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 10th February be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.
That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.

Mr. Lilley: As a result of the orders, social security will cost more than £83 billion in 1994–95. It will rise to £88 billion in the next year and £92 billion the year after. That huge increase demonstrates both the need to reform our system, to make it affordable in the long term, and our commitment to maintaining a decent level of social security.
We have met our commitment to uprate benefits, fulfilled out pledge to provide extra help for those most affected by the imposition of value added tax on fuel and are improving the benefits system for mothers who want to return to work.
As I announced to this House in December, to provide merely for a full uprating of all benefits next year will cost £2 billion, but I have gone beyond that. Despite a very difficult public spending round, I have also provided a very generous package of extra help—over and above the normal uprating—towards VAT on fuel. That will help more than 15 million people in the coming year.
The package of extra help with VAT on fuel will cost an extra £400 million this year alone. Over three years, the cost will be £2·5 billion. In practice, it means that people on income support will have an increase of 3·9 per cent. from April. A further 2 million people above income support levels, who receive housing benefit and family credit, will receive similar increases.
However, I also wanted to help those who have worked, saved and earned modest pensions, who often get no extra help. So single pensioners will get an extra 50p a week and couples will get an extra 70p this year. That is on top of the £1 and £1·60 rises in the full basic pension in line with the retail prices index.
Next year the extra amount for VAT will be worth £1 for a single pensioner and £1·40 for couples and, in the third year, it will be as much as £1·40 for single people and £2 for couples.
The increases for VAT will also apply to people on widows' benefits, invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance and the disability premium. Those increases are permanent. In seven weeks' time people will begin to receive the extra money with their benefit—as we promised—before the higher fuel bills arrive. In addition, I am increasing cold weather payments from £6 to £7 in November, and by a further 50p from November 1995.
To help those people with higher than average heating costs, we are making a further £35 million available through the home energy efficiency scheme. From April 1994, all pensioners and disabled people not on income-related benefits will be eligible for grants from the scheme to insulate their homes and make them more energy efficient. More than 200,000 extra households will be eligible for such grants next year.
By any standards, that is a very substantial package of help. It is far higher than almost anyone expected. We have certainly done rather better than the 50p that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) told The People newspaper he thought was enough.
Spending on benefits continues to grow in real terms. Since 1979 it has grown at an underlying rate of 3 per cent. a year—excluding expenditure on the unemployed. Underlying growth is expected to exceed 3 per cent. a year in real terms until the end of the century. Thereafter there will be even more pressure as we enter the next century and the number of pensioners begins to rise. On behalf of every working person every working day, we are spending £15 just to finance the social security system. It is vital to the future of social security that we keep within the limit of what we can afford. My priority is to make savings that do not have a direct effect on benefit entitlements. That means bearing down on operational costs, which will be kept within last year's limit, even with an increased work load. It means carrying forward the battle against fraud.
Benefit money should go only to those whom Parliament intended to help, not to those who abuse the system. Social security fraud hurts: it means less money for the people who need it. Last year, we set up a new strategic board to look at fraud. The hon. Member for Garscadden welcomed its announcement in December. The board is chaired by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. He reports excellent progress. We have redesigned the order book to prevent forgery; introduced secure delivery methods to prevent theft; and are rewarding vigilant Post Office Counters employees who stop false encashment. Last year, the Benefits Agency's investigators saved more than half a billion pounds. I fully expect them to do better this year.
I am also stopping a number of abuses. For example, I will discourage local authorities from paying housing benefit on unnecessarily expensive properties. I have introduced legislation to prevent employers from avoiding national insurance liability by paying their employees in commodities such as gold bullion. We are tightening up on the availability of safety net benefits—a practice which I believe is favoured by Labour party supporters—for various foreign nationals who are looking for work in this country.
United Kingdom citizens would not be entitled to the equivalent of income support and housing benefit if they were looking for work in other countries of the European economic area. In most of those countries, some form of residence test is applied. I propose to bring our rules more in line with theirs by introducing a residence test requirement here, too. It cannot be right to leave our social security system open to benefit tourism.

Mr. Donald Dewar: On the expected savings, will the Secretary of State quantify his

attack on benefit tourism? What exactly will the proceeds be? Will he say a word or two about the citizens of the Irish Republic and how they will fit into this framework?

Mr. Lilley: We do not have records of how many foreign people who would be affected by the rules are currently claiming benefit other than the Home Office record that some 5,000 are claiming income support. That may well be incomplete. We have no records of those claiming housing benefit. We cannot put a figure on it. Clearly it is a growing problem. By stopping it now, the potential savings are equal to the size of the growth that would have occurred had we not taken this action. I am glad that it was welcomed by the hon. Gentleman when it was announced.
As to the impact on citizens of the Irish Republic, we will not of course discriminate through the measure between any citizens of the European Community, but, typically, they are more likely to have habitual residence both in this country and their own country and therefore pass the test. It is mistaken to assume that Irish people typically come to this country to claim benefit. By and large, they come here to work.

Mr. Dewar: I was not suggesting that.

Mr. Lilley: I was not saying that the hon. Gentleman was making that suggestion, but if anyone were to make that assumption—as some people do—they would probably be wrong.

Mr. Adam Ingram: He was thinking it.

Mr. Lilley: Perhaps I was reading the hon. Gentleman's mind.
A further problem is those who enter this country on the express condition that they will not be a burden on the public purse, yet subsequently find ways of claiming benefit. I have already stopped the payment of income support to people who are supposed to be self-supporting or who are here illegally. The same will apply to housing benefit and council tax benefit from April 1994. Proposals are with the Social Security Advisory Committee for consultation. Those changes will enable us to concentrate our resources on those who have paid their contributions and taxes and intend to pay their own way in future by finding work.
In July last year, I published an analysis of the growth of social security. It indicated that one of the main sources of growth in claimants and expenditure up to the end of the century would be invalidity and related benefits. That is why I am making a fundamental reform of those benefits. Our reforms to statutory sick pay will return responsibility for levels of sick absence to employers. I am improving the structure of statutory sick pay and giving extra support for small employers. At the same time, I am reducing employers' national insurance contributions. That will more than compensate for the increased costs on statutory sick pay.
Overall, as a result of the orders today, employers' net costs will be reduced by more than £100 million a year. Those employers who accept the challenge to improve their sick absence records will benefit even more.
The number on invalidity benefit has more than doubled over 10 years, and trebled over 15. Yet every other source of information indicates that the health of the nation has been improving. If left unchecked, expenditure on invalidity benefit looks likely to increase by a further 50


per cent. in real terms by the end of the century. The new incapacity benefit will focus help on those medically incapable of work—the people for whom it was always intended—through a new, more objective test-of incapacity for work. I am also making a number of structural changes to the benefit so that those incapable of work will continue to receive a basic level of income, as of right, regardless of means.
The net effect of these changes will be not to reduce help to the sick and disabled, but only to curb the growth of expenditure. In future, we would expect to spend as much in real terms as those who, in the absence of changes, would have received invalidity benefit as we do now. In addition, people on incapacity benefit will be able to undertake up to 16 hours' voluntary work a week without it affecting their benefit. People receiving disability working allowance will qualify automatically for free prescriptions and dental treatment.
I am increasing the level of support for Motability, which provides help with mobility for more than 170,000 disabled people. I am increasing by £1 million the grant to the mobility equipment fund, which adapts vehicles for severely disabled people.
This is a fundamental set of reforms to benefits for sick and disabled people. Altogether, my package represents a very substantial improvement in the structure of benefits for short and long-term sickness and disability. Employers will be encouraged to take direct responsibility for improving the health, motivation and monitoring of their employees. Benefits will be concentrated on those genuinely unable to work. The spiralling costs of benefits will be contained to the gain of all taxpayers and the ultimate good of the welfare state.
The next stage in my sector-by-sector reform is arrangements for the unemployed. At present we have two benefits with conflicting sets of rules, separate delivery systems and different levels of entitlement. That is contradictory, confusing and unnecessarily complex. We propose to replace them by a single new job seeker's allowance with a contributory and a means-tested element. At the same time, we will place a greater emphasis on helping people back to work.
Under the new proposals, we are strengthening the links between job search and benefit. At the start of their claim, unemployed people will be required to enter into an agreement on how they will set about seeking work. That agreement will not just be a form of words, but a commitment to a course of action that is relevant and beneficial to the individual and his or her circumstances. It will provide the claimant with a positive plan for getting back into work.
We are looking at ways of giving extra help to those who make the effort to find a job. We recognise that going back to work can involve extra costs, for example, for clothing and transport, which may be hard to meet after a long period out of work. The Employment Service, therefore, is piloting a job finder's grant of up to £200 for people who have not had a job for two years.
We are making further changes that will benefit unemployed people who want to help themselves and who find work. At present, unemployed people whose partners work for 16 hours or more a week are excluded from income support. That is a by-product of a beneficial change to the family credit rules, but it can work as a disincentive

to families on income support. We will therefore be restoring the limit for partners of people on job seeker's allowance to 24 hours.
I am also pleased to be able to offer further, very substantial practical help to people with family responsibilities who want to work. Giving up benefit in favour of a low-paid job can be an unattractive proposition, especially if it involves child care costs. Therefore, I propose from October 1994 to enable families with a child under the age of 11 to offset up to £40 a week of child care costs against their earnings before those earnings are taken into account against benefit. Families on family credit will therefore be up to £28 a week better off. That will help up to 150,000 families, and we expect 50,000 people to take up work as a direct result of that measure.
Another major change announced in the social security statement was the equalisation of the state pension age. We will probably see scarcely any growth in the number of pensioners over the next decade or two. Thereafter, however, there will be nearly a 50 per cent. increase in subsequent decades. Given that the basic state pension amounts to more than a third of the social security budget, the potential impact of those extra pensioners on Department of Social Security spending is enormous. That is one inescapable reason for equalising at the age of 65 and for phasing in the new arrangements between 2010 and 2020.
To have equalised the state pension age at 60 would cost some £12 billion a year more than our proposals. Yet that appears to be what the Labour party is recklessly committed to spend. On 26 January I wrote to the hon. Member for Garscadden and reminded him that last year's Labour party conference passed a motion calling for the equalisation of state pensions at 60. The Labour manifesto likewise pledged to allow men and women to draw full pension at 60. Yet the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said on 26 January that Labour has
no commitment to equalisation of the pension age at a certain age".
I have received no answer or clarification from the hon. Member for Garscadden. I will happily give way to him if he would like to tell the House whether the Labour party is committed to £12 billion a year extra spending. Or are Labour party promises made outside the House not worth the paper they are written on, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East cynically assures us? We must assume from the silence of the hon. Member for Garscadden that the Opposition's words outside the House are simply not to be believed, trusted or taken into account.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that some countries have felt constrained to equalise the state retirement age at 67? We are still better off than a number of countries because of the prudent way in which we plan our social security and retirement systems.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having some difficulty in seeing how this part of the Secretary of State's speech about state pension age and its correlation comes within the terms of the orders. Perhaps I am unable to fathom that quickly.

Mr. Lilley: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They are all inextricably entwined in the social security statement, but I felt that you would not like me to unravel them at this stage.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to elaborate on a specific and non-partisan point, which will be of interest to the House and the country. At the same time as equalising the pension age, we want to ensure that women have more equal pension entitlement. One factor which makes it difficult for many women to earn full entitlement is that they are not earning while bringing up children or caring for relatives.
We already compensate for that by the home responsibilities protection system, which makes allowance for years out of the labour market by enabling women to build up full entitlement to the basic pension in as few as 20 working years. We plan to extend that to SERPS. That will be immensely valuable to women, and to a few men who are in a similar position. It will enhance women's pensions rights by some £2 billion a year by 2020.
Over the past year, I have endeavoured to stimulate an informed public debate, as I have by the orders. I have been as open as any Minister could be in thinking out loud about our long-term approach to social security reform. I have spelled out long-term approach to social security reform. I have spelled out our principles; I have discussed our methodology; I have published our analyses of past spending and projected future growth in spending and dependence; I have collated overseas experience; I have issued our plans for the first sectoral reforms and indicated our likely legislation a year or so ahead.
All this has indeed stimulated a welcome, lively and constructive public debate. Academics, think tanks, newspapers and commentators have joined in—everyone except, alas, Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. They have been conspicuous by their silence.
The Commission for Social Justice—whose formation I welcomed—has not yet made any concrete contribution. Fearing it might eventually do so, the Leader of the Opposition has now gone to the length, as we are informed by the newspapers, of setting up a separate policy body to take direct control of social security policy and presumably to shut the commission up.
Since policy has been shunted into those bodies, the poor hon. Member for Garscadden—though theoretically his party's spokesman on social security—has been completely silenced. His role is like nothing so much as a mime artist on the radio: the Marcel Marceau of the social security debate. We urge him, on this occasion, when he has plenty of time and an eager House waiting to hear his words—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—to let us know his thinking and what his policies would be. We want to know what his party would spend and how it would reform benefits and contribute to the great national debate on the reform of the social security system so that we may have a better welfare state in the next century.
I believe that the orders will be widely welcomed. Our reforms have the backing of most thinking people and we are on track to build a better welfare system for the future. I commend the orders to the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I must confess to the Secretary of State that there is a certain predictability about such debates. I had the advantage, or

should I say I took the precaution, of re-reading what he said last year. The right hon. Gentleman's speech therefore contained few surprises.
I accept that I have time to speak at great length, if I were so minded, but I am not sure that the audience is one that I find attractive. It looks a little like the "Muppet Show" at the moment, possibly because the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), among others, is present. I am glad to respond to some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made.
This is a ritual debate in the sense that it is an annual outing. The right hon. Gentleman has gone through the niceties of etiquette and it is usual for him to restate what he has already told us in the uprating statement. Some parts of the right hon. Gentleman's speech were almost word perfect, if my memory serves me correctly.
It is also an occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman appears before us in the role of the eminently reasonable man. He likes to parade the uprating benefit, particularly when it is in line with prices, like a trophy. We are invited, collectively to say, "The lad has done good." I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that I do not believe that the entire House will be willing to do that today and it is certainly not something which the country would be willing to do.
I accept that expenditure on social security is formidable and that it is growing. I am not sure that that demonstrates any commitment by the right hon. Gentleman to retain what he was pleased to call a "decent level" of benefit. It certainly underlines the price that we have been paying for recession and high unemployment. One of my colleagues has told me that that can be calculated at about £20 per week per household. That is simply the cost of financing and paying for the long dole queues.
Although I suspect that the rate of unemployment will continue to fluctuate, one of the really depressing factors to emerge from the figures published today is that the number of long-term unemployed has gone up greatly in recent times. It looks as though that problem will not be easy to solve.

Mr. Jenkin: Taking into account all those factors, particularly what we now call cyclical social security, are we spending enough?

Mr. Dewar: We are spending a great deal in the wrong way. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman, whom I welcome as a scarred veteran of Glasgow politics of recent years, by his use of the word "cyclical" is conceding that it is a product of the recession. Some of us would argue, however, that it is the result of the mismanagement of the economy. None of us likes bills to go up for that reason.
If we were in a position to do it, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman at least would want the general standard of protection in society to improve. It has not been possible, not because of demographic factors—those are some years away, as the Minister pointed out—but because Britain has failed to achieve a reasonable economic performance in the past decade. That must rest on the hon. Gentleman's conscience as an active Conservative and a supporter of the Government, as it should on the conscience of the Secretary of State.
Today, we have the essential minimum. The Minister has uprated benefits according to the RPI, where


appropriate, or the Rossi index. He has added in a certain amount partially to compensate for the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the Secretary of State's announcement, the increases will not compensate old-age pensioners and one-parent families, who will suffer as a result of the increased scope of VAT?

Mr. Dewar: There is no argument about that. The Secretary of State seems determined to make me famous and perhaps I should be flattered, but, as so often happens, the fame is ill earned. As he knows, there is no way that the construction he seeks to put on what I said can properly be put on it. I make that point in passing, but I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
On this non-partisan occasion, I am minded to be charitable, but the best I can do is say that it is a partial and inadequate rebate for what most people consider an offensive and regressive form of taxation. It will leave many important groups in society at a considerable disadvantage.
I was in Aberdeen at the weekend; it is a good place to contemplate severe weather. I was attending a public meeting there and it was drawn to my attention forcefully and in a sensible way that the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel will strike at certain groups who can ill bear an additional burden—we think immediately of the infirm and pensioners living in poverty, but we often forget people on low incomes with young families who find it particularly difficult to cope.
There is another problem of which at least one Conservative Member is aware. The imposition of VAT on domestic fuel represents an erosion of zero rating in a way that makes the whole VAT system much more regressive.
I shall not pursue the argument at great length, but it is worth reminding the Minister that at the time of the big hike in VAT, when Ministers were throwing money at the problems of the poll tax, we were told that we did not need to worry, and that VAT was not regressive as vital areas of expenditure for low-income families were zero-rated. It is unfortunate that the Minister offered no adequate compensation in the uprating statements; it means that the problem will get worse.

Mr. Lilley: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it his own party's commitment, both unilaterally and by its signing of the European socialist manifesto, to transfer greater powers from the House to the European Community in the setting of our taxes? If we applied that to VAT, there is absolutely no doubt that the Community and Commission would seek to remove entirely the zero rating. For him to regret the potential demise of zero rating—something we have no intention of permitting—is pretty extraordinary when his party would hand over powers that would ensure its end.

Mr. Dewar: One of the pleasant things about debating with the Secretary of State is that he never loses his ability to astonish me. The zero-rated areas, where they existed, were retained until 1996 by agreement with the British Government and the European Union. There would then have been further discussion. No one seriously believes that it would not have been possible to retain them. However, if we unilaterally withdraw them, of course there will be no prospect whatsoever of retaining them.
I know—and I pay tribute to it—no one in British politics more genuinely and passionately opposed to everything that European Union stands for than the Secretary of State for Social Security. I have heard him out loose in the country giving speeches to student audiences, and although I thought his views were perverse and extraodinary, I never doubted that they came from the heart.
I find it astonishing that a member of a Cabinet that has just agreed to remove an area of zero rating in the knowledge that we can never return to it, should accuse me of being a traitor. It shows an effrontery which is endearing but totally implausible. I hope that he will not return to that.
I return to the orders. Income support, housing benefit and family credit increase by 3·9 per cent., including the VAT compensation. In his uprating statement on 1 December last year, the Minister told us that the increase was higher than most people in work will receive. I understand that that is probably correct mathematically, but we all know that, even with the uprating, those on income support will find it extremely hard to make ends meet.
I think that I am correct in saying that after April, a husband and wife with two children under 11 will get £113·05. I accept that there are passported benefits, of which housing benefit is the most significant, and that there are a number of other aids and additions, but a family of four living on that figure will have very little room for comfort. It does not represent a cause for pride after many years of stewardship by the Conservative party.
The statistics on poverty tell a shameful story. The Minister will have studied the recent reports from the Institute of Fiscal Studies which showed that the richest 10 per cent. were £30 a week better off today than they would have been were the 1985 tax regime still in place, while the poorest 10 per cent. were £3 worse off.
The Minister would probably say that taking the extremes of the argument sometimes produces a distorted picture. That is a danger. There is always that possibility in trying to extrapolate an argument from a small group, but the bottom 40 per cent.—a very large slice of population—is significantly worse off than they would have been under the 1985 tax regime.
Against that background, I protest against any proposition that the present benefit rates are generous or allow people to sit back and think that they have no cares in the world and they can continue to jog along, not as the historical Earl of Durham did on £40,000 a year, but on £113·05.

Mr. David Willetts: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Institute of Fiscal Studies report says nothing about the living standards of any group of the population; it is about the impact of tax changes? If those tax changes were compensated for by increases in benefits, as happened with the community charge, there would be no fall in living standards, even if the IFS figures showed an increase in tax payments.

Mr. Dewar: I understand the point that the hon. Member is making, and, as always, it is a sophisticated and perfectly fair one, but I think that he would also agree with my general proposition that the gap between those who have and those who have not has been exaggerated and broadened by Conservative tax policy. I am sure that he


would worry about—and I do him the credit of thinking that he would worry about it. Also, on the kind of rates that I have quoted, it is very difficult for people living on income support, particularly in a time of general recession when it is often impossible, with the best will in the world, to find work. It is not an easy situation.
I am just protesting gently about the somewhat righteous air with which the benefit figures are paraded and we are asked to be grateful for what we have been given.
The Minister also dealt, very properly, with pensions and their uprating. I must confess that I am not as happy—he would not expect me to be—with the situation as he is. He well knows—it has been much debated and advertised—that the basic state pension has been falling as a percentage of average earnings for a considerable time: 15 per cent. at the moment and likely to drop to 7 or 8 per cent. in 20 or 30 years' time.
The Minister tried to tempt me in the debate and perhaps I can now tempt him a little into the interesting exchanges between his colleagues. The Chancellor, he may remember, in the press briefing reported in The Times of 2 December and very widely noted, made it clear that he thought that it would not be right to allow the state pension to be vestigial. He had said in the Budget speech that it was the cornerstone of the welfare state. so we have the Chancellor assuring us that it would not become vestigial, and three or four days later we have the Chief Secretary to the Treasury looking forward to the day when it would be nugatory.
I am tempted to ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to act as honest broker between his two colleagues, but it is probably a vain hope because I think I know where he lines up on this occasion—with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He told us in the corresponding speech last year:
We are committed to linking the basic pension to prices."—[Official Report, 10 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 1042.]
The way in which he said it and the spirit in which it was said made it clear that, whether it became nugatory or not, he would not move from that position.
That means—this is something about which we should all worry—that if we are to deal with pensioner poverty we must rely more and more on the pensioner premiums within the income support system, and that will be a growing feature of Conservative policy in the years ahead, together with all the problems that go with a heavily means-tested system, which I think are unacceptable to the public as a whole.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to criticise that policy if he wishes, but is he offering an alternative? Is he implying that there is more money in the pot somewhere with which to increase the basic state pension over and above inflation every year, in order to prevent what would otherwise happen to it?

Mr. Dewar: I said something in an earlier exchange, and I do not want to tire the House by going over the same ground again; but I do not believe that the money that we have is being spent in the best possible way, because of the economic circumstances and the ever-increasing claims from the number of people who are dependent.
The hon. Member will know that when the Conservative Government came to power there were 4·4 million people dependent on supplementary benefit. Now,

with the equivalent, which is income support, we are looking at close to 10 million people. I think that 9·9 million was the last figure that I saw. It has a dramatic effect on the economics and finances of the welfare state.
After all, we have the Minister incurring considerable unpopularity in order to drive out of the benefit queue comparatively small numbers of people with his various adjustments and trimmings. Those are literally handfuls of people compared with the kind of growth to which I have referred. So there is a strong case for saying it is not a simple equation.
May I also say to the hon. Member—we may have occasion to debate this at another time—that, in any event, it is not simply a matter of the basic pension. The basic pension ought to reflect increasing national prosperity, but it is clear that, for a long time, we must still wrestle with problems of pensioners in poverty. A number of schemes that the hon. Member will know about are under consideration and have been publicly discussed; they involve ways in which we can deal with pensioner poverty and with basic pensioners' incomes which are probably preferable—certainly in theory, and I hope workable in practice—to relying increasingly on a deepening tranche of income support premiums. In any case, there is a continuing debate in which I am sure the hon. Member and the Secretary of State will want to take part.
It is in a sense ungrateful of me to say that this is no more than was promised, that the uprating has been just what we would expect and is all very routine. The Minister is entitled to ask whether he has not done well, because he has kept the promise. When we remember what was said, for example, about no more VAT increases and about tax cuts year on year, I suppose that the Minister might try to claim that he had performed rather better than the Government as a whole, since manifesto promises have gone up in flames left, right and centre.
I find it just a little odd that the right hon. Gentleman should accuse me of abandoning pledges and promises, given the record of his own Government. He accused me of it last year as well. I suspect that he will accuse me of it next year and, when he is on the Opposition Benches, he will accuse me of it then. It is a form of words which is now in his head and in which he is well practised.
I thought it interesting that in last year's debate, the accusation was levied not at me but at my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. What did the Secretary of State say about him? He accused him, at the previous election, of trying to increase national insurance contributions, a particularly hideous crime, I should have thought, and practically unthinkable. He added that not only was my right hon. and learned Friend trying to increase national insurance contributions, but, what was worse, he was trying to cut the benefits given to those who paid the contributions, another particularly unpleasant phenomenon and one about which he was quite severe.
I do not know—I do know; let us not be coy about it. I remember distinctly, in the week before we rose for the Christmas recess, the Government bulldozing through a Bill to increase national insurance contributions by 1 per cent., which would produce considerably more revenue, as the Secretary of State will know, than a penny on the standard rate of income tax. We have also had the job seeker's allowance announced and the incapacity benefit Bill launched on its way.
It seems to me that if the thoughts of the Labour party were thus roundly condemned, it must be nothing to the personal unhappiness of the Secretary of State in having to implement exactly the same policies as a Minister.
I should like to say a word or two, because the Secretary of State did, about the incapacity benefit that is being introduced. I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Standing Committee considering the Bill, who, I understand, are sitting very unreasonable hours and well into the evenings on a measure where there has been no sign of obstruction or anything other than constructive discussion. I sympathise with them and regret the way in which the Government are conducting their business.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): Scandalous.

Mr. Dewar: I think I heard the Under-Secretary saying, "Scandalous." I agree with him entirely; it is. We will agree that the word "scandalous" is applicable to the circumstances that I have described.
Incapacity benefit is a way of excluding people from benefit. The Minister knows very well our doubts about the mechanical test, about the confusion between disability and the capacity to work. I am sorry that the outcome will be a considerable number of people added to the unemployment register. That is something which the Minister's own Back Benchers may want to worry about in the near future.
The Secretary of State gave us an interesting estimate on Second Reading. He reckoned that, in the first year of incapacity benefit, 95,000 people would be added to the unemployment register as a result of the measure and that, in the second year, 190,000 would be added.
The Department of Social Security is working hard to manufacture unemployment. No doubt it will be suggested that it was "Lilley's lump" that did it, but I suspect that the Government will experience some problems. As I have said, long-term unemployment is on the increase, and I fear that those in the category that we are discussing will be added to the list after 12 or 24 months—those being the subdivisions of the category. I hope that I am wrong, but I do not think I am.
While the Government talk about how well they have done in regard to upratings, let me remind the House that some of those who survive the new test and receive the new incapacity benefit will be £30, £40 or even £50 a week worse off as a result of the hidden cuts in the formula. I need not cite extreme examples; it is easy to identify such cases. Those hidden cuts will make life much more difficult for people in a very vulnerable category.
I am not remotely referring to lead-swingers, scroungers or people who have settled for a comfortable life with the aid of a doctor who is not quite as stringent as he should be. I am talking about people who have survived the hoops and hurdles of the new test, and are genuinely eligible for help. They will find that much of that help has gone. The job seeker's allowance will not be introduced until April 1996, which could be described as the medium term; but, as a result of the cutting of the period conferring automatic eligibility from 12 to six months, some 100,000 people will lose their entitlement to unemployment benefit. The income support dependency figures will rise, which I consider very unfortunate.
May I ask the Minister some specific questions? The guaranteed minimum pension is being uprated again, but I

have heard—I do not know whether it is true—that the Government are thinking of abandoning it. I do not suggest that they are contemplating total abolition, with no replacement provision; but I am told that the Department has discussed with industry the possibility of a substitute. That, of course, applies only to occupational pensions. I am always open to arguments, but I should be interested to know whether any changes are in the offing.
There is no equivalent of the guaranteed minimum pension in the private pensions sector. I know that regulation is Treasury-oriented, rather than social security-oriented; but investigations conducted by the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation, and by KPMG Peat Marwick on its behalf—and work done earlier by the Consumers Association, whose views are neatly summed up in the title of its press release "The Billion Pound Rip-off"—suggest that the Minister's pride in announcing that, since 1988, some 5 million people have moved into the private pensions sector is another reason for examining the lack of regulation.
We should also consider the number of people on very low incomes—perhaps below £9,000 a year—who have invested in private pension plans, despite the general advice of the industry that such action is unwise in view of the charges and commissions involved. It would not be fair to plunge into a debate on that; I am simply flagging my genuine concern about what is happening. It is difficult to achieve a satisfactory regulatory framework when pension plans are sold by people whose livelihood depends largely on commission.
I hope that the Minister will also say a word about statutory sick pay. That will interest at least one hon. Member who is present:I understand that Lord Jenkin has featured prominently in debates in the other place, one of whose Members described him to me as a Tory grandee. I do not know whether Lord Jenkin himself would accept that description; I always associated him with the "brush your teeth in the dark" days of 1973–74, and I am not sure whether such conduct, or such advice, is becoming a grandee.
Anyway, Lord Jenkin led the charge in the House of Lords. I am anxious to know exactly what is happening; I know that an amendment was brought to this House, and was dealt with ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), but I am not sure what the next stages will involve. I think that it is generally agreed that the vast majority of sickness-related absences in small businesses are limited to four weeks, which makes the 100 per cent. rebate granted after four weeks considerably less generous than it appears.
I was genuinely surprised when Lord Astor—answering Lord Redesdale—said in the other place that a reduction to two weeks would increase the cost to the Treasury from £25 million to £30 million. The comparative modesty of the figures may illustrate how few employees will be covered, even with the increase in the national insurance contribution limit to £20,000.
I should like to hear a progress report from the Minister, along with some indication of where we go from here. I hope that he will seriously consider the two-week measure; I know that the Federation of Small Businesses, and Bill Anderson and his colleagues in Scotland, are very keen for some progress to be made.
If the Secretary of State hardens his heart and says no, what will happen to the report that will be substituted for an order or regulation? Presumably, it can be debated; but


under what auspices? Will the Government make time for both Houses to discuss a report that says no—despite the efforts that both Houses have made? If such a report is published and there is no opportunity for scrutiny, debate or consideration, it will be seen largely as a swiz.
Sadly, many of the problems that featured in the corresponding debate last year are still with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Withington recently drew attention to the lack of progress on the independent living fund of 1993, and the fact that only £500,000 of an allocated £4 million budget had been taken up. The Minister of State says, "Ah, but that is worth £5 million or £6 million in a full year." If I remember rightly, the old scheme went up to £19 million or £20 million. It is a very disappointing result; people in social work tell me that there are immense practical difficulties, and that the scheme is just not working well. The Minister may well want to consider that aspect a little more closely than it has—apparently—been considered in the past.
The other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) was given an interesting answer about the social fund and its administrative expenses. I accept that discretionary schemes are always expensive, but it is nevertheless startling to learn that those administrative expenses amount to 45 per cent. of the sum disbursed. That makes the case for a simplification of the scheme; we find the cash limiting particularly distorting.
One thing has changed. In last year's debate, we heard a great deal about the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Minister made considerable mention of the social security review that he had instituted, and I have the impression that he was a dominant figure. I realise that the Chief Secretary is now rather devalued: he made the mistake of making too many speeches. Worse still, quite a lot of them were read, and some very odd things emerged.
I read with great interest the speech that the Chief Secretary made to the rather quaintly named Conservative Way Forward Group. I recommend the speech to the Secretary of State; indeed, the right hon. Gentleman probably knows it well. I do not know that the Chief Secretary's "back to basics" ideas will have been of much help to that group, but they were interesting.
I had not realised—I do not know whether you had, Madam Deputy Speaker—that the decline of this country could be dated precisely to the time when we allowed Marx and Engels in to live and work freely here. I was interested td discover that some universities wallow in self-satisfaction. Apparently, they are good places from which to pour scorn on the world outside. We were told that through those universities had passed nearly all the people who enjoy influence today and that, as a result, a fine tradition of national tolerance had been corrupted into a new tendency to nihilism. I think that that must be a reference to Oxford and Cambridge. My understanding is that the Secretary of State went to Cambridge, as did the Chief Secretary. I hope that they were not in any way corrupted by nihilism. In any case, according to the Chief Secretary's interesting speech, a university education is the source of national decline.
When we were dealing with last year's uprating, we were told that there was a grand design. At least that was the implication of every comment. Now the Secretary of State—and I understand why—is anxious to say that he

does not believe in the "big bang" approach. [Interruption.] I mean that, in terms of social security reform, he does not believe in the "big bang" approach.
Lest the right hon. Gentleman think that I am being risqué, let me make it clear that this is a term that he himself has used. [Interruption.] I misunderstood. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was protesting about my language, but apparently he said this last year. In any case, the "big bang" approach is now unfashionable, and it seems to me that we are proceeding by way of opportunity cuts. We are taking little areas of the social security system. Hence the incapacity benefit and the job seeker's allowance.
As these policies begin to unfold, it is clear that the Government are doing a great deal of damage. It is important that I should get this right lest I be accused of guilt by association. The ingenuity of the Secretary of State is becoming a byword—certainly in my circle—so I am anxious to get these matters straight.
I should like to finish on an obvious but important note. The Government have accused me of being somewhat silent. This is a charge that is not comonly made against me, but I am always prepared to stand new types of abuse. The Secretary of State has put forward his version of Labour party policy. We shall have opportunities to debate the future of the pension system and the retirement age. We have made clear our belief that the important features are choice and flexibility, and in that regard we have the support of many people in the industry. I assure the Secretary of State that we have not made the commitments to which he referred rather briefly and, I thought, somewhat jokingly.
If we are to talk about consistency in these matters, I have to congratulate the Secretary of State on one very important inconsistency. For a long time he talked about opting out of the basic state pension. Conservative Back Benchers who are in the Chamber will remember it. Working parties were set up, and there were specific references to at least the possibility of opting out. As I have done once before, I now record my thanks to the Secretary of State for having ruled that out as a possibility. The clarification was helpful.
The right hon. Gentleman will remember "The Walden Interview" of 5 December, in which, despite a spirited plea from Brian Walden that he should not disappoint his fans—a small and select group—he made it very clear, as a pledge for himself for ever, that there would be no opting out of the basic pension. Many of us regarded that as important and helpful.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make other things clear.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I hope that he will make it clear that I was primarily ruling out means testing of the pension. Would he care to comment on the views expressed at the weekend—stated on television on Saturday evening and repeated on "The Frost Programme" at breakfast time on Sunday—by his right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the former Leader of the Opposition? Was the right hon. Gentleman authorised in any way to float this idea? Is it in line with the original request of the current Leader of the Opposition that the Commission for Social Justice should consider the means testing of all conceivable benefits? Or is the former Leader of the Opposition just a maverick to be ignored?

Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman has offered me a splendid series of options. The first point that I must make is that my right hon. Friend is entitled to float any idea he wants to float. I hope that the Secretary of State is not suggesting the introduction into the Labour party of the thought police concept that, presumably by implication, exists in the Conservative party.
The former leader of my party is a very welcome entrant to the debate about the future of the pension system. I did not see the television programme to which the Secretary of State has referred, and I do not think that a transcript has been printed. Thus, I am not aware of the detail of my right hon. Friend's comments. No doubt the Secretary of State has a transcript. I can think of no industry—especially in social security—that has experienced more growth than the business of producing transcripts. Indeed, I have several here, so the right hon. Gentleman and I could play snap.
It would be unfair of me to comment on something of whose details I am unaware, but I welcome any contribution to this debate.

Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Gentleman rule it out?

Mr. Dewar: I cannot rule out something that I have not seen in detail. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We cannot have sedentary interventions from anyone—not even from a Secretary of State.

Mr. Dewar: In view of what I have just said, it would be ludicrous to rule anything out. I hear the Secretary of State say, "Very helpful."

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman has just welcomed the fact that I ruled out means testing, but he refuses to rule it out. To say the least, it is an odd position for the Labour party's spokesman.

Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman is playing intellectual games of a particularly peelly-wally sort, and I am not impressed.
My understanding of the proposal is that it made use of the tax system and certainly was not as dependent on any form of means testing as is the system employed by the right hon. Gentleman, who has condemned 1·6 million people to very heavy means testing by leaving them to make ends meet through income support. The Secretary of State's suggestion that his hands are clean does not bear examination.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to clarify his position. We now know that he has abandoned any hope of a system that would provide for opting out of the basic pension scheme. I cannot invite him to intervene, but he might like to tell us at some point whether he agrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that everyone was in favour of family values, but that the day-to-day practicalities of politics had to deal with society as it was. Society had changed a lot and would continue to change,
but I do not think we should use things like the welfare state as an instrument for trying to move these changes in any particular direction.
Perhaps the Secretary of State agrees with that. I hope that, if he gets a chance, he will confirm his position. We should have an interesting background for future debates were we to know where he stands.
There will undoubtedly be many more debates on this subject. There is a great deal of argument to come. I am not

satisfied that the Secretary of State can take pride or satisfaction from the collection of instruments that we are considering today.
Of course, the Secretary of State always has a little list when a Conservative party conference is looming. That is the trouble. He then usually produces something that is far from his finest hour. But the tragedy is that he has another list with a more serious intent—a list of trimming, cutting and undermining measures such as have been enacted in recent legislation. I suspect that even some Conservative Back Benchers have had to push and shove through measures about which they probably had considerable doubts.
I accept that that has not been a big bang approach, but the incremental approach is no more acceptable if the end product is wrong. When the Minister says, as he did last year, that he has a coherent and sensible reform programme, few will agree. Many of the vulnerable people who have been, or will become, the casualties of his efforts will testify to that.

7 pm

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Before I start what I intended to say, I must tell the House that I too saw the broadcast on Saturday evening in which the former leader of the Labour party was shown some of the options by representatives of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The conclusions drawn and the implications of the programme, in terms of what the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said about means-testing pensions, were most interesting. I shall be keen to see what more he does with the idea, and whether he takes it forward.
The Secretary of State knows—in fact, he keeps reminding me—that, at our party conference in Torquay, lost an argument about means-testing pensions. However, in retrospect I am happy to confess that it was right that lost. [Laughter.] How is that for baring one's soul and conscience? As we look at the future costs of pension increases—

Mr. Lilley: It is embarrassing.

Mr. Kirkwood: It is not embarrassing at all. We have free debates and make decisions at our party conference and we are honest enough to confess the circumstances in which we subsequently find ourseleves. I am now fairly persuaded that future increases in pension provision will have to be targeted to be meaningful.
That does not go as far as the former leader of the Labour party went when he was being led astray by the IFS representatives, who draw simplistic straight lines down boards with fibre-tipped pens. Alas, if only the solutions to social security problems were that simple. A tempting prospectus was laid before the right hon. Member for Islwyn, and he acepted it a bit too glibly for my liking.
The Liberal Democrats as a party are prepared to consider potential increases in the future provision of pensions being targeted. That is not to say that we would interfere with the existing universal state pension but, as has already been said, that is only 15 per cent. of national average earnings. If over a long period it were allowed to take its course in terms of its share of national wealth and earnings, and we considered carefully how to target increases, targeting could enable us to get help to the people over retirement age who are in desperate need of help, as some of them are.
The Government are right to have considered the average position of people over retirement age, and they can take some credit for that. We supported the moves by the Government some years ago to encourage the provision of private pensions. It was the right thing to do. The sum spent on it—£6 billion or £7 billion—went a little over the top; they got the judgment wrong on the incentives. But although that was a substantial sum, the mistake was a detail in comparison with the policy decision to encourage private provision, which was right. That decision will pay handsome dividends in future when we examine the need for the state to supplement the provision made for people who are over retirement age.
Having agreed with the Government and welcomed the increases available to people on what is now the average income for pensioners—I am happy to acknowledge the fact that that has increased—I still do not think that the Government are doing enough to look after the people who are left to exist on the state pension alone. If that is true now, it will be even truer after April, when the increase in VAT comes into play.
We can argue about whether the package of measures intended to compensate people was enough. I do not think that it was, and I am now beginning to find both in my case work and in the letters that I receive that people are anticipating the prospect of the VAT increase with real apprehension and genuine fears about how they will make ends meet next winter. Whatever else the Minister says when he replies, I hope that he will spend a moment or two saying what he has in mind in terms of careful monitoring. Obviously it is too late to change the uprating orders, and the increases are welcome so far as they go, but they do not go anything like far enough.
I am especially worried about the 2·7 million children identified by some pressure groups as being in families on income support who will be left short and may go cold next winter. The compensation package may well be enough for households in average circumstances; I do not deny that. However, the IFS work on the distribution of the tax advantages over the past few years, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), is right, and the statistics show that the distribution of wealth over that period has benefited the better-off sections of society. Households living on below average incomes are in for some hard times.
The Government have not paid enough attention to people living on state pensions who suffer from disabilities of one kind or another, or to families on or around the poverty line—big families, with consequent additional costs, on low incomes. There is no extra help for people who are unemployed, for people just above benefit levels, or for people who do not claim their full benefit entitlements. So there are still some worrying areas. Those may not be complete groups in society, but large numbers of people are in those special circumstances, and I do not think that the uprating caters for them. A 3·9 per cent. increase across the board is welcome so far as it goes, but it does not deal with the difficulties that many of those groups will face.
The Minister should take account, too, of the wider implications of the IFS tax distribution study. It reveals facts that the Department of Social Security should take to heart in the arguments at the broader national level

concerning the share of national wealth that it is right to devote to social security spending, because those arguments are pinned back into the proposals in the uprating order.
There is loose casual talk, much of it from the Minister's colleagues, about a crisis in welfare spending and the need to take precipitate emergency action to deal with it. If the expenditure devoted to that important area is measured as a share of national wealth, I do not believe that it is right to say that there is a crisis. There is no need for precipitate action, although there is an urgent need to keep the situation under close and careful review. Talk of crisis and great disasters immediately impending is not right, and we must keep that fact in mind. By and large, the percentage of national wealth devoted to social security has not increased dramatically. Nor need it be increased if sensible policies are adopted on a continuous basis.
I am pleased that the Secretary of State is paying attention to the need to constrain fraud. However, he must be careful that he is not heavy-handed in the way in which he enforces measures. There are savings to be made. I met his colleague in another place and I was impressed by some of the work that is being done to try to save money so that we can be more generous in some of the uprating orders in future.
The Secretary of State must also be careful when he sets targets. Of course there may be as much as £500 million to be saved, but he must not go at that figure too hard and too fast, as has the Child Support Agency. He could have saved himself a lot of heartache in the CSA contest if he had tapered that agency's targets for recovery in a less steep way. To try to recover £530 million in the first year of operation was far too ambitious, and he is paying the price. People such as myself are beginning to question the principle of the legislation because the practice is being so rigidly enforced.
The Government deserve some recognition of the steps that they have taken in the overall uprating increase and of some of the longer-term policy changes, but there are three small areas that I would like the Department to consider. First, in the totality of Government policy, the question of carers and how they are catered for in the social security system as it exists at present is inadequate. The orders do not recognise some of the demands placed on people looking after people with disabilities.
I acknowledge that the budget for benefits to people with disabilities has increased substantially in the recent past—not because the benefits are becoming more generous, but because more people are encouraged to claim eligibility and are being accepted. The provision for carers needs to be considered and, with a little ingenuity and creativity, a lot more could be done to help them.
The second issue is not directly related to the orders, but is more a direct responsibility of the Department of Education. The withdrawal of income support for students during long vacations is having an adverse effect on the income available to students. In his previous incarnation, the Leader of the House, who is in his place, and I argued over whether it was right to pay for students through the income support system, and he persuaded me that it was not. However, that is not to say that the system which replaced the withdrawal of housing benefit and income support in the long vacations is anything like adequate.
In considering some of the uprating orders before us, the Department of Social Security has a duty to consult the Department for Education and to be absolutely satisfied


that the Department for Education is providing properly through the scheme which replaced the original social security assistance to students. There is emerging evidence, not only through my case work, but in information from national organisations and pressure groups including the National Union of Students, that some students are not completing academic courses because they cannot make ends meet. If the problem is as extensive as I believe, the Department should have urgent talks with the Department for Education to try to resolve the matter.
Thirdly, I turn to the issue of statutory sick pay. It is not terribly convenient to discuss all the orders mixter-maxter. We always used to have a clear uprating debate, which I much preferred. Dotting about through all the orders makes it more difficult for the House to give proper attention to their detail and importance. I perfectly understand that, currently, the business of the House is not always under the control of the Leader of the House and that he has to deal with the nonsense that the Opposition land on him. That is a subject for another debate which will happen sooner rather than later.
The hon. Member for Garscadden raised an important point about the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Order by adverting to the answer given in the other place to a question asked by Lord Jenkin. The Government revealed that it would cost only £10 million—not an insignificant sum of money—to reduce the four-week period of SSP to a two-week period for small businesses with effect from April 1994.
If I were a Minister, I would be careful considering that. Taken as a package, industry may benefit, as the Government point out with statistics and arithmetic, which I accept, but tiny businesses with two, five or 10 employees, which may face flu epidemics or the like, will not be able to cope easily with the regulations as they stand. There is a good argument for spending that £10 million. It could address the entire issue once and for all and, as the hon. Member for Garscadden said, we should consider it carefully.
An argument which raged 18 months to two years ago has raised its head again recently in a way in which worries me greatly. It concerns preserved rights of income support for people in residential homes. It is a technical area which affects a relatively small number of people, but I have come across a couple of cases—not only of constituents but of people in other parts of the country—in which people with preserved rights are finding it difficult to make sense of being unable to top up the income support that they receive. Not only are those people unable to top up their own income support, because of lack of money. but the health boards and local authorities in Scotland, England and Wales are not in a statutory position to help.

Mr. Keith Bradley: That matter was discussed in the past year.

Mr. Kirkwood: Indeed: the question was raised in the past year and I accept that some changes were made. However, the changes made were to cope with circumstances such as evictions and emergencies. I make a plea that the Government consider the question again and give at least an element of discretion to health authorities or local authorities—I do not care which—to enable them, in certain compelling circumstances, in which people are

no longer able to stay in the home of their choice despite arguing for a variety of reasons that that home is especially appropriate, to allow residents to stay.
It seems extremely cruel to require people to move from that home for the sake of £6 or £7 top-up per week. It would not cost an enormous sum of money and if health authorities or local authorities were given that power, they would not go mad and be profligate.
The legislation as it stands, even though it has been amended recently, is not sophisticated and sensitive enough to cope in a common-sense fashion with circumstances that affect old people who have lived with preserved rights for many years in places such as the Leonard Cheshire homes. Such homes provide an invaluable service and back-up support. At the moment, income support cannot help them, but the Department should talk to the Department of Health and to local government to try to achieve a more sensitive system which could cope in such circumstances.
It would be helpful if the Minister would consider that point. It would not cost a lot of money to solve the problem and it would not affect thousands of people. The Minister could open the door and enable discretion to be used to provide immense relief to people who are currently caught in a statutory trap. That trap was created inadvertently; Parliament did not have it in mind to prevent the opportunity for topping up in certain circumstances when people are facing eviction.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will consider the consequences of the imposition of VAT on low-income households and families. Although the Minister was right to say that his package may well cater, on average, for the needs of the majority of people, large sections of the community—a figure of 2·7 million children has been referred to—will suffer greatly as a result of exposure to cold and hardship next year unless the Government urgently reconsider the scheme and introduce improvements in the very near future.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased that we are having a debate on the orders, but I am disappointed that there are not more hon. Members here to participate in it. There is clearly much controversy about the issue, and the future of the welfare state is at stake. That future is bound up inextricably with the orders and with the onward march to the Valhalla of the Adam Smith Institute to which the Secretary of State for Social Security is trying to lead us.
The Minister is a long-term conspiracy theorist and, to be fair to him, he sets out his theories in public. He is publicly trying to dismantle and destroy the welfare state. He is publicly trying to privatise as much of the welfare state as he can, and he is publicly trying to create a very divided Britain. He is being very successful at that.
One need walk for only 10 minutes from this building to find large numbers of young people sleeping on the streets of our capital city. If one walked the same distance in another direction, one would find many people paying £100 a night for hotel rooms because they can afford to do that. One would also be able to see people eating meals in restaurants and paying bills that amount to more than the weekly income support giro cheque. The Minister is presiding over the division of the country. At least he has been open about that.
The Minister has been very clever to shift the terms of the debate by claiming that this country can no longer afford universal welfare benefits, universal pensions and the welfare state. People like the Minister have cleverly pursued that point in the broadsheet press, and to some extent on radio and television, to the exclusion of all considerations of poverty. The voices of the homeless and the poor and the voices of those expected to subsist on a state pension are largely unheard. Instead, experts on huge salaries tell the poor how they should live and say that the poor are an increasing burden on our society.
Year after year, as the Tory party conference approaches, the Minister, like his predecessors, searches around for a new scapegoat on whom to blame all the nation's problems. I recall when 16 to 17-year-old feckless youths were the target of that year and were accused of not seeking work. As a result, many of them now receive no benefit. Many end up on the streets, and many of those are then driven into drugs and prostitution. Ministers should think about such things before they set off in particular directions.
The Minister attacked single parents at the Tory party conference last year. He has consistently attacked single parents, claiming that they are a drain on our society and that their children under-achieve. The Minister might try to deny it now, but he has consistently attacked the whole principle of single parents. He knows that that is the case, although when he appeared before the Select Committee he was remarkably coy on that subject.
The Minister has approached benefit fraud as though someone, somewhere, actually approves of it. None of us approves of benefit fraud, but the Minister assumes that large numbers of people do. He should remember that London local authorities, the majority of which are Labour, are doing their best to stamp out conspiracies to defraud the public purse in respect of housing benefit. However, the Minister should consider the amount of housing benefit money that is paid into the pockets of private landlords and the owners of bed-and-breakfast hotels through the system of rent deregulation.
The real fraud, as revealed in one of the orders, relates to the change in the unemployment benefit system. To reduce from one year to six months the time when unemployment benefit can be paid is a fraud on a massive scale. After all, it is a contributory benefit. It is something for which people have paid all their working lives. However, we are being told that this is some kind of advance.
Who on earth is the Minister of State to decide that that change should be made? As the Minister's predecessor did before the war—those people had the same kind of blinkered mentality about the divisions of society and the rich and the poor—the Government are blaming the unemployed for being unemployed and making them the scapegoat for the recession that the Government created and advanced.
The orders do not provide us with the opportunity to reduce or eliminate poverty. Instead, they are a further step on the road of division. We should think very carefully about this. If we want to live in a Britain in 10, 20 or 30 years' time with a permanently unemployed work force of

3 million to 4 million, permanent divisions between rich and poor and a very small number of extremely rich people, we are heading in the right direction.
The Minister has created hysteria about the cost of the welfare state. Fortunately, there are those who do not accept that hysteria. I refer the Minister to the excellent work of the Rowntree Trust carried out by John Hills at the London school of economics in which he sets out a range of options about the costs of the welfare state. However, he also sets out the consequences of not maintaining the welfare state.
In a very good summary of John Hills's research, Will Hutton states:
it is vital to wrest the argument from those who insist that such is the financial stringency the only issue is to make each welfare pound most effective; rather the debate should be about how we choose to live as a society. The welfare system is just one of a series of building blocks, all of which interconnect to construct our common home.
That surely should be the approach, but it is not. Instead, as the pension uprating order confirms, pensioners are being defrauded by the break of the link with earnings which was removed in 1980. In 1975, Labour passed legislation stating that the pensions should be uprated annually by the higher of either earnings or prices. That principle was broken in 1980 and substituted with prices. As a result, each pensioner is about £18 a week worse off.
The Government glibly talk about the number of pensioners receiving occupational pension schemes and the number of pensioners who have investment income. They quote various average figures to show that no pensioners are worse off. However, they deliberately hide the serious plight of a considerable number of pensioners who have to live solely on the basic state old age pension. Those people may possibly receive housing benefit to assist with the rent, but they lead a pretty miserable existence. The Government should pay some regard to them. Perhaps they do not because the majority are old, women and do not have access to occupational pension schemes.
We are told that, because of demographic trends, it is important to equalise retirement ages upwards to 65. That is absolutely extraordinary. The country is considerably wealthier now than it was in 1910, when pensions first came fully on stream, and wealthier than it was in 1948 when the universal welfare state was virtually completed. However, we apparently now cannot afford to allow people to retire at the lower age.
I do not mind if people want to work beyond the age of 60. I have no problem with that. However, people should have the opportunity and the right to retire at 60. It is a monumental fraud on women workers to tell them that they will now have to work until they are 65 when they have been told all along that the retirement age was 60.
In that respect, the Minister prayed in aid the fact that similar moves were taking place in other European countries. The fact that a bunch of right-wing monetarists around Europe are peddling the same nonsensical theories, which have driven Europe to its present level of poverty with 15 million people out of work, is hardly a reason for rejoicing. It should be a reason for shame for the Government. Instead, we should be looking to share the wealth so that people can retire at an earlier age if they so wish. I should like to see a proposal to equalise the retirement age downward for both men and women so that couples will have an opportunity to enjoy retirement together.
Claims about costs are extraordinary. In population projections, there will indeed be a peak in the number of people of retirement age at about 2030—in other words, in about 36 years—but, after that time, the number starts to decrease, as the Secretary of State will be aware. Instead, the Government choose to end all their predictions at that point and claim that there will be an enormous increase in the cost of the state retirement pension unless something is done about it now. That is why the link was broken and that is why the Government tried to destroy the state earnings-related pension scheme as an option.
The push towards private pension schemes, individual schemes and personal portable schemes is extremely dubious—dubious because of the methods in selling many of them, dubious because of the security of some personal schemes that are on offer and dubious because of the legal position of many pension schemes at present. I am a member of the Select Committee that is still examining the administration of pension funds. Some of the things that we hear make one's hair stand on end. The Maxwell pension fraud was just one example. Although this matter is slightly irrelevant, I hope that the Minister will give an inkling of when the Government will propose legislation on the control of pension funds.
There is now 22 per cent. unemployment in my constituency, and a large number of people are unable to claim unemployment benefit and therefore are not included in the real statistics—the real figure is much higher. Such people do not lead particularly exciting lives; indeed, they lead very miserable lives. Annual rent increases, even those in local authority rents, particularly for people on low earnings, are much higher than the rate of inflation, although those paying them receive housing benefit if they are unemployed or on income support. Their children are not growing up in a particularly exciting environment, because they face more cuts and increased charges for school meals, trips and so on. Our children are growing up in an increasingly divided society. I hope that the Secretary of State will at least begin to address those issues.
The Secretary of State talked glibly of the job seekers' allowance; he said that if only there were a different allowance that would encourage people to seek work. He seems to fail to understand that people do not like being unemployed. It is not a very exciting life, it is not a holiday camp, it is a time of great depression. Many of the long-term unemployed become extremely depressed. The longer they are unemployed, the harder it is to find work.
The Secretary of State attacks people in receipt of invalidity benefit as though a monumental fraud is going on. People receive invalidity benefit because they have been invalided, often as the result of accidents at work. Instead, we are moving to an incredibly expensive system of examination of the detailed cases of people on invalidity benefit. Likewise, the Government have removed the single payment system. In 1986, the Prime Minister piloted through the House the legislation that established the social fund. Recently, in an answer to me, the Minister admitted that the social fund is the most expensive of all benefits to administer. It is probably the least effective for that.
I do not welcome the measures, because they do not go far enough. Clearly, there are some increases for some people, and there are some improvements as a result of enormous pressure by some very effective pressure groups, but I do not believe that the Government or the Minister have any vision of eliminating poverty or of the maintenance of a universal welfare state. The Minister's

vision is of an onward march towards privatisation and divisions in society. He should look at the record. A fifth of Europe's poor live in this country. Poverty and divisions are increasing. I hope that we return to the subject of the future of the welfare state and consider it not in the mealy-mouthed way that the Minister does but in the spirit of trying to eliminate poverty and provide real security.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: On Monday night, when I rose to speak on the local authority housing support grant, some of my colleagues questioned whether I was qualified to do so, as I represent the constituency of Strathkelvin and Bearsden, which is generally reckoned to be fairly middle-class and well-heeled. It is described as a leafy suburb. Many people might wonder at my interest in the uprating of social security benefits. It is true that my constituency is reasonably well-off. If the boundary commissioners have their way, there will be virtually no public sector housing in my constituency after the next general election.
I am particularly interested in the issues. In my constituency, a significant number of people rely on various benefits which, for many of them, are an important lifeline. I am also reminded now and again by constituents in the wealthier part of Bearsden just how adequate many benefits are. Often, people who have lived life in a fairly comfortable manner and are fairly comfortably off, for reasons not necessarily of their own making, suddenly find themselves on hard times and falling back on benefits. It is only then that they realise just how inadequate those benefits are. I am faced by irate constituents who ask, "How on earth am I supposed to live on this? How on earth is one expected to get by on these benefits?" Such questions would be asked by all of us in that position.
For that reason, I wish to examine four aspects of the measures, but none more so than the one which hits many of my constituents—income support benefits for nursing and residential care. As we know, nursing and residential care are booming. Certainly in my part of the country, nursing homes and residential homes mushroom every day. One can be certain that, if a school closes, it will open the following week as a residential care home.
Let us consider the costa geriatrica—the Ayrshire coast. Glaswegians no longer go "doon the water" for their holidays. Who does? Granny goes doon the water, into the geriatric home on the Ayrshire coast. Such homes have blossomed even in post-industrial areas—they are everywhere, and they are becoming an increasingly important part of our social structure.
The measures are particularly important because the NHS withdraws from the nursing care of the elderly when it should not do so. Many individuals who should be looked after within the NHS and within long-term care are being sent to nursing homes. There have been recent cases of individuals with head injuries, brain diseases or other diseases being removed from long-term care and being placed in nursing homes. Money must be found for them, partly from benefit and, depending on the circumstances and the relevant home, partly from the resources of those individuals or their relatives.
The matter is becoming increasingly important and it is throwing greater burdens on families who thought that it would not be a matter for them or for their relatives later in life. It will become increasingly obvious to many people,


as their relatives grow older, that such care has been privatised without anything being done about it. I have constituents whose elderly relatives are decanted and placed in residential homes, and they find that they have to pay additional amounts. Although there are numerous residential and nursing homes for which income support is adequate through the social services, there are more in which the individual must make an additional contribution.
I have two important questions for the Minister. I do not want to say the usual, "We do not have enough; give us more," and so on. We will take that as read and spare ourselves the boredom of going through it again, but there are two matters that we should consider.
I was recently approached by a constituent whose relative had to go into a nursing home. He brought with him a file about 2 to 3 in thick, containing the paperwork—mostly relating to the financial implications—involved in having his relative put in the residential home. He was highly intelligent and articulate, but he had spent several months on the matter and had had to complete a large amount of paperwork. He and I wondered how the many others managed to cope. I plead with the Minister to consider making the provision of residential nursing care simpler.
My constituent said that the finances demanded of him did not cause a problem. One of the first acts of the nursing home was to put the finances in order, but the medical side was allowed to slip. He faced difficult problems, including 2 or 3 in of paperwork from the Department of Social Security, the social services and the Department of Health. Everyone batted the paperwork around the residential home. Will the Minister consider how such matters can be dealt with more easily? Residential nursing provision is often sought at a time of great difficulty for families, who may have suffered recent bereavement and may have many other matters with which to deal. In addition, they face the catastrophic problem of dealing with multiple forms and individuals.
The regulation of residential nursing homes is a matter for the Department of Health, but the subject should also concern the Department of Social Security, which provides large amounts of money. I should have thought that the Minister would want to ensure that the money was used properly and effectively.
I am sure that the Minister would agree that the regulations are inadequate; many of them are out of date. They involve matters relating to fire escapes, the number of car parking spaces, the temperature of the tap water, what the carpets are like and whether the windows should be open. They do not deal adequately with the care of residents or contain powers to close homes. There are no means to deal with inadequate legislation. Often, a board or authority wishes to take action against a home but cannot do so because it is not within its powers.
I accept that such matters are not the responsibility of the Minister's Department, but he should be concerned about them and he should have discussions with the relevant Departments. I want the Minister to consider regulations to cover those problems. I do not want to repeat the argument that there is not enough money available—we shall take that as read. It is an important matter and we

need the regulations. My constituents, who live in the leafy suburbs of Strathkelvin and Bearsden, constantly come to see me about such problems.
Some of my constituents also complain that they cannot live on the benefit provided. I live in a constituency with little public sector housing. If the boundary commissioner has his way, it will have no public sector housing, but will remain a Labour seat. I realise that that would be unusual in other parts of the country, but it is not in Scotland. On Monday, we discussed the relationship between the reduction in deficit funding and housing support grant, and the greater emphasis being placed on rents and housing benefit. I make a plea for more funds to prevent pockets of deprivation, even in my constituency.
I also make a plea for the retention of child benefit. People who receive it throughout my constituency, including its better-off parts, appreciate its value—not only in financial terms, but for its recognition of the family and the integral part that it plays in our society. For many people, child benefit forms an important part of the budget and helps them to avoid poverty. It also recognises the importance of the family to children and the cost of having a family. The Government should recognise that and should constantly uprate child benefit. I realise that the issue is always at the forefront of Conservative ideology.

Dr. Robert Spink: The hon. Gentleman said that he would like a general increase in benefits,particularly for housing. The hon. Gentleman has made some excellent points, with which I have some sympathy. But does not he realise that, since 1979, social security spending has increased in real terms by 75 per cent? If he wants to increase that budget, by how much would he incrase it and how would he fund it?

Mr. Galbraith: I said that I would not repeat the usual litany of saying that there were not enough funds and please could we have more. I hoped that Conservative Members would not go through the usual litany of asking how we would pay for it. I shall not fall into that trap. It was worth the hon. Member giving it a try, but he will understand why I choose to ignore him. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) wish to intervene?

Mr. Ian Bruce: indicated dissent.

Mr. Galbraith: Very well—I shall ignore the hon. Gentleman.
The subject of workmen's compensation and industrial diseases benefits is a wide one. I understand that they are not the responsibility of the Minister, but I should like him to consider the general principles of those benefits and diagnosis in relation to such matters.
I was involved in a long-running case and correspondence concerning asbestosis and mesothelioma., compensation for which was the responsibility of the Department of Employment, as the Minister will be aware. The Department was generous in dealing with compensation and making back payments, but the issue centred around whether compensation should be paid from the time of diagnosis or after the board. The issue involves the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security and the Department of Employment. We should consider the matter further. Officials at the Department of


Employment tell me that they are considering and monitoring the subject, which generally means that they are not doing much.
That is not a specifically political issue, so there need not be any disagreement between the parties. Many of the decisions on when compensation should be paid and when the diagnosis was made were based on criteria that were established many years ago. With improvements in technology, we can alter the criteria for diagnosis and we should be considering that.

Mr. Corbyn: I have a constituent whose mother worked as a cleaner in a Glasgow bus garage and died as a result of asbestosis. Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the problems for people suffering from industrial diseases and illnesses brought about by working conditions, such as asbestosis, is that the settlement of fault often takes so long that the person who has suffered dies before he or she can receive any benefit? The case of the lady who worked at the Glasgow bus garage was a particularly serious example of that.

Mr. Galbraith: Compensation made while people are still alive is double the amount of compensation made after death. Although the diagnosis may have been made by biopsy, if the individual dies before the board can confirm the diagnosis and make the award, the compensation is halved. It is the difference between £23,000 and £11,500. That is grossly unfair.
The basis for the system is that, in the past, diagnosis was difficult. It was probably based on a physician listening to the chest and saying, "Say 99. Breath in and out. Let me look at your fingers for clubbing." If people were lucky, they may have had a chest X-ray. However, that is no longer the case for many people. Objective criteria can now be used in many cases.
I would like the Minister to address the four issues that I have raised, especially the one relating to residential care. We should make it easier for individuals to deal with residential and nursing care and stop the need for everyone to have a 3 inch file. These issues transcend all sections of society. As I said, my constituency is mostly middle class and after the next election it is likely to be totally owner-occupied. However, these are major issues within it.The issues are not isolated in one pocket or confined to one group in society. They relate to everyone in our society. I hope that the Minister will look favourably at the issues.

Mr. Paul Flynn: It is a pleasure to speak briefly in this important debate on pensions and other matters. The subject of pensions occupies us greatly because, with the funds available, they represent a large slice of our national wealth. It is fair to say that we will be on an extremely dangerous path if we follow the line presented by the Government and accept their mythology.
The greatest improvement to our pension policy took place in 1975 with the introduction of the state earnings-related pension scheme, which was supported by all parties. When the Conservative Government came to power, they changed that policy and announced that they would get rid of SERPS altogether. They did not do that, but in the mid-1980s they degraded the value of SERPS to a large extent—and that is continuing. After that, an inquiry into pensions was held. I believe that the Government made their great error in the way in which

they proceeded from there, because they then announced that they would give the country a choice by making personal pensions available and they bribed people to take them.
There are many examples of what was said in the House at the time. There was some disgraceful advertising. Rather than go for the sleazy operators, I took two of the principal banks—Barclays and Midland—to the Advertising Standards Authority for the advertising that they carried out in 1989. It was wickedly deceptive and, indeed, my case was proved. The banks advertised by saying, "You can have a gift of £5,000—don't be a SERP"—as if a SERP was a nasty, oily, unpleasant animal. They said that people should not be fools and should take the £5,000 gift—that was the word they used—from the Government.
The gift consisted of people's contributions to the state scheme and the contributions made by employers, plus a little tax allowance, plus the alleged gift, which one would more accurately call a bribe, which was paid out of the national insurance fund. Many of the people who took that line—at least 2·5 million of them—now bitterly regret their choice. What happened was that the greedy sales people from the banks and the building societies—many of whom were employed for only a short period—largely oversold the policies, especially to people over a certain age. The policies were of no value to many people in their forties and fifties—indeed, they endangered their financial futures.
That is one of the major scandals that will be revealed in the future. We already know about those who were persuaded to leave fine occupational schemes and go into personal pensions. Once again, they were oversold because the sales people involved received huge commissions on the sales. After a short period, many of them found that the £5,000 had gone altogether. At least £2,000 would have gone in commission and the rest in administrative expenses, and people were left with hardly any funds at all.
The other point about personal pension schemes which has never been explained is that they are not pension schemes as people traditionally understand them; they are savings schemes. The amount that is paid at the end does not depend on what the person is likely to be earning at the end of his life—it depends on what is happening on the stock exchange. That would be good if the circumstances were similar to those in the 1980s, but it would be dreadful if they were similar to those in the 1970s.
We must ask the Government to reassess their support for personal pensions and their whole pension policy because they did not provide people with a choice. They threw millions of people to the wolves.
Another issue that will be raised in the debate on uprating concerns us all.

Mr. Corbyn: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of personal pension schemes, is he aware that such schemes are heavily subsidised by the loss of income from the national insurance fund? We do not have a free market choice—we have a subsidy for private enterprise to set up personal pension schemes, many of which have proved to be less valuable than SERPS. Many people would have been well advised to remain in SERPS and not accepted the bribes to which my hon. Friend rightly referred.

Mr. Flynn: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I suggest that he returns to the measures before the House. I do not mind passing references to other matters, but he must now return to the major themes of the measures.

Mr. Flynn: I am grateful for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The other measures affect the uprating of various benefits. This has been an uncertain story over the years. When we want to know whether benefits can be uprated, we look at the health of the national insurance scheme. Certain benefits have not been uprated over the years. The child dependency allowance, which represented 11 per cent. of the average wage in 1979, now represents 6 per cent. That allowance is paid to the sick, the disabled, war widows and their children. It is surprising to realise how many child dependency allowances are paid, and the reason is the health of the national insurance scheme.
Something like £8 billion has been looted from the national insurance scheme to pay the bribes on personal pensions. That money has gone directly into the pension industry, which is fundamentally wasteful because of the number of people operating in the industry and the amount of money that goes in commission and administration charges. The national insurance scheme is, above all else, efficient because at the most only 5 per cent. of the money is taken out in administration charges. The amount can be as much as 50 per cent., as happened under Beveridge. That is the reason why we have the national insurance scheme, which was introduced by Lloyd George and improved by Beveridge.
Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether the new incapacity benefit will be uprated on a statutory basis every year and whether that will be part of the Government's policy. The reason given for the new incapacity benefit—it has been trumpeted aloud—is that many people who receive benefit are malingerers or scroungers who take money from the public purse when they are not entitled to it. It does happen. There are many cases of that and no one defends them. We should start with people who take money from the public purse on a large scale and who ask for some equality of treatment.
One family in the country has five houses paid for by housing benefit out of the public purse, and the family already owns two houses. The daughter-in-law of the head of the household has announced that she is not going to do any more work. As far as I know, she is still to be paid out of the public purse, but she has not been subjected to the actively seeking employment test.

Mr. Corbyn: Why not?

Mr. Flynn: I would like an explanation for that and perhaps the Minister can tell us tonight. The members of that family receive huge amounts of money out of the public purse, but they are not treated as scroungers or as people who are living off the state. If the Minister wishes to write to that family, he will find that the address is Buckingham palace, London.
A result of the one order that we are debating is that the basic pension will be uprated. The Labour party increased the real value of the basic pension by 20 per cent. That Labour Government are often accused of many things, but we did allow the basic pension to increase by a reasonable rate over the years. We could not maintain the full promise,

as Government Members constantly remind us, but we honoured our pledge to increase the pension by a substantial amount.
This Government have constantly pared away the basic pension with their salami cuts. I do not think that any debate on social security goes by without a Government Member repeating the familiar mantra that the Labour party could not pay the Christmas bonus for two years. That is something to which they return every time they are desperate.

Dr. Spink: I will not repeat the mantra, but will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that the average pensioner is now 42 per cent. better off in real terms than in 1979, when we took over the levers of power from the socialist Government? Does not that show the Government's commitment to pensioners and will the hon. Gentleman support the current uprating?

Mr. Flynn: The statement proves the gullibility of the hon. Gentleman, who used the word "average" in his question. One must remember that, for instance, the Queen Mother is a pensioner.
The hon. Gentleman must understand and study the figures carefully and he should also read the writings of thinking people in the Government—there are such people. It is a controversial and dangerous thing to say, but there are Conservative Members who write with knowledge on the subject. They never take part in debates such as this, nor do they sit on Committees. During the past 24 hours, I have copied three pages of a book written by a Government Member for Members of the Committee dealing with incapacity legislation.
Yes, the average income of pensioners has gone up because the rich pensioners have become immensely richer and the poor pensioners have become relatively much poorer. There has been a redistribution of poverty among pensioners.

Dr. Spink: Is it not a fact that, during the last decade or so, poor pensioners have improved their wealth? A greater number of pensioners now have refrigerators, central heating, cars, telephones, videos and television sets. Have not pensioners been increasing their wealth in real terms and their material value during the last decade?

Mr. Flynn: The hon. Gentleman must learn that, under the Conservative Government, those who survive on the basic pension plus a little income support have had their income increased, not along with earnings—the way in which the prosperity of the general population is measured—but in line with prices. In that respect, they have fallen behind every year.
I will give a small example which may not strain the hon. Gentleman too much. The Christmas bonus is a nice, simple example, with easy figures to remember. What should the £10 Christmas bonus be worth now? I have already made the point that, for two years, the Labour Government did not pay the bonus. We failed, and we regret it greatly. The Government have cheated on that bonus on every one of the past 15 years. If the bonus had been increased in line with earnings, it would be £32—three times the value it was when the Labour Government were in power.
The Government have spread what is accepted as the truth by the gullible souls among Conservative Members. There are times when we must have deep sympathy for


Government Members. There is a story that soon there will be a line-up of single Government Members with the Chief Whip pointing a shotgun at them. They will all be taken down to the Crypt to have arranged marriages-with suitable women to avoid scandal. That seems to be going a little far, and it is a harsh price to pay for acting as accomplices to the Government's various crimes during the past few years. However, it is their choice, and there must be a time when all the scandals will come to an end.
So shall I come to end. The whole movement in social security benefits during the past 15 years has been one of deception by the Government. There has been a continuous period of cuts and the Government have tried to exaggerate a demographic change which will happen in the next century, but to nothing like the extent that they suggest.
My final point is that there was once a Committee which said that this country could not sustain the benefits system, or continue to pay pensions as it has done. It said that it was crucial that the age of retirement be increased to 63 for women and 68 for men. That was the Phillips committee, which reported in 1954. Its view then was that we could not afford the benefit system. It was as wrong as the view put forward by the Government now that we cannot afford a benefit system in the future. We can, and the will is there. A small amount of growth will allow us to pay for the benefit system, not dismantle it and hand the population over to the greed and waste of the insurance companies.

Mr. Keith Bradley: In preparing for tonight's speech, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) re-read last year's debate. It was interesting that many of the issues of concern that have been raised tonight—as opposed to the general uprating principle with which the Government have complied—have flowed through the past 12 months until today. We are still waiting for the Government to respond effectively to the concerns and the gaps in policy which clearly still remain.
In my winding-up speech last year, I said that the debate had been wide-ranging and thoughtful. Tonight, we have had relatively few speakers but quality has made up for lack of quantity. I welcome the speeches by my hon.Friends the Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). I welcome, as always, the thought-provoking speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I cannot promise that all his views will necessarily become party policy, but they will certainly be included in our continuing review and debate during the coming months.
I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who raised some crucial points that were on record from last year's debate. The points are by no means diminished by that, and they need reinforcing year on year. I particularly welcome his comments about people in residential homes within the preserved rights category. That was raised in the debate last year, and I recommend to the hon. Gentleman the excellent report by the Local Government Information Unit on that group.
That problem clearly has not gone away. Thousands of cases were brought to our attention. The hon. Gentleman says that only a few have been brought to him recently, but I assure him that, throughout Britain, a worried and large group of people want to ensure that their homes will

remain their homes and that income support will be paid because their savings have rapidly diminished over the years.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also mentioned carers and students. I link with that point the income of 16 and 17-year-olds, who are a forgotten group. Although the Government claim that all 16 and 17-year-olds are guaranteed some sort of training and, therefore, some income, by the Government's own admission, that is not the case. Significant numbers of 16 and 17-year-olds have no income and the Government have made no provision for them to have any income.
Although I welcomed the speech made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, I was disappointed with his disingenuous attack on the Labour party for its tactics in the House. It is never my intention to fight like with like and I would never wish to remind the hon. Gentleman that the Liberal Democrats have failed to put any Member on the Standing Committee that is considering the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill to fight that legislation with the Labour party. I would not take that course because I do not believe in disingenuous attacks, but the hon. Gentleman should be more careful about the way in which he approaches such matters with regard to the Labour party.
It has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. It was relevant that the Secretary of State began by trumpeting and triumphantly stating the claims that he has made about the compensation package for VAT on fuel. The context of the whole debate is clearly the Government's economic problems—the £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement. The Government had to impose VAT on fuel. It has to be remembered that the compensation package was introduced only because there was a massive public outcry against the imposition of VAT on fuel. It was not something which the Government intended to introduce as a natural consequence of their policy.
The compensation package bears a little closer scrutiny, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said. It is deeply flawed. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the 2·7 million children who rely on income support. That group will be particularly sold short in this respect. As we know, the compensation package contains two main elements—advance compensation for the average rise in fuel costs reflected in the retail prices index and some recognition of the extra cost faced by pensioners and people with a disability.
For a number of reasons, the package falls far short of adequately protecting people who live in or close to poverty. It is not a waste of the time of the House to identify the losers in the compensation arrangements. For example, the package provides no recognition of the particularly high costs of fuel for people living on low incomes or in poverty.
A study by the Child Poverty Action Group based on calculations from the family expenditure survey in 1992 showed that the poorest 20 per cent. of people spent 11 per cent. of their weekly budget on fuel. That is £10·23 on average a week. In comparison, the top 20 per cent. of earners spent only 3 per cent. of their weekly budget, or £16·28, on fuel. The average expenditure on fuel is 5 per cent. of the weekly budget or £13·02 a week. The regressive nature of VAT on fuel is clearly identified by the disproportionate burden of fuel costs on people on low incomes.
The deeply flawed compensation package does not recognise that families with children have extra heating costs which result from both the heating needs of children and the fact that families with children are likely to spend more time at home. Most important, the compensation package provides no help for people on unemployment benefit. It provides no help to people on low incomes but just above the benefit level. They are on very low incomes, but they receive no compensation under the schemes.
No help whatever is provided for people who fall through the social security net and do not claim their entitlement to social security benefit. It can be argued that they should claim their entitlement, but the complexity of the scheme and people's changing circumstances mean that many people who are entitled to means-tested benefits do not claim. So, yet again, people lose out under the compensation package.
Let us examine what the comparison package means for families with children on income support. It amounts to merely 40p for a couple with one child under 11 per week and only 5p for each extra child. It amounts to only 30p a week for a lone parent with a child under 11 and only 5p for each extra child. Although the Secretary of State is prepared triumphantly to announce the package, those figures show that considerable groups of people will be particularly disadvantaged and will suffer as a consequence of the imposition of VAT on fuel and the compensation arrangements.
It is also worth examining the way in which the compensation package will affect disabled people. It is worth noting—the Secretary of State raised the point again today—that, in his review of the social security budget, one of the groups that the Secretary of State particularly targeted for savings was people with disabilities, in the widest context. He heralded that intention in his Mais lecture and it has been translated into policy initiatives that the Government have taken.
Sticking for the moment to VAT on fuel, it is worth noting that fuel is the most common item of expenditure for disabled people. They use it for heating, for hot water for daily baths and laundry. They use electricity for such items as recharging electric wheelchairs and powering stair lifts put into their homes to help them.
Figures for the average weekly increases in the fuel bills of people with disabilities have been produced by the Disability Alliance. I thank it for its help. The figures show that the extra charges amount to £1·30, rising to £2·80 when the full rate of VAT is payable. That is more than twice as much as the compensatory increases in some benefits. So disabled people, who need to use fuel extensively, will be particularly disadvantaged by the compensation package.

Dr. Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that spending on disability benefits has trebled since 1979? How much more would he spend?

Mr. Bradley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's assiduous consideration of the debate. If he will allow me to come to the wider point about disability benefits when I deal briefly with incapacity benefit, he will recognise our view on the way in which the Government are cutting the money available for people with disabilities. If he will bear with me, I shall happily give way to him later on that point.
Compensation through the benefits system for the imposition of VAT on fuel will fail many disabled people. Some benefits for disabled people have not been increased. There is no compensatory increase in the disability living allowance. Although many people who receive DLA will receive some compensation through other benefits, those who do not receive other benefits will lose out altogether.
That group includes disabled adults with often small amounts of income from other sources such as occupational pensions. It also includes parents of disabled children who receive disability living allowance but no other benefit. One has to question why that particular group of people has been missed out of the compensation package.
There is no compensatory increase in the standard rate of statutory sick pay. Some benefits have been increased by less than the promised 50p for a single person and 70p for a couple. For example, a single carer receiving invalid care allowance will receive only 20p—35p for a couple—yet invalid care allowance amounts to only 60 per cent. of contributory benefits. Furthermore, there is no evidence that carers' fuel bills are less than those of households receiving other benefits.
The Government seem to have chosen to ignore that group when introducing the VAT compensation scheme and I urge the Under-Secretary of State to reconsider them and find out whether they can be helped, because they will suffer especially from the imposition of VAT on fuel.
While we are talking about disabled people, it is interesting to note that, because of the imposition of VAT on fuel and the compensation package, three benefits—severe disablement allowance, invalid care allowance and severe disability premium—which were paid at the same rate, will now receive different treatment and be paid at different rates. For example, severe disablement allowance has been uprated by VAT compensation of 50p, so the new rate will be £34·80 per week; invalid care allowance has been uprated by VAT compensation of 20p to £34·50 per week; but there is no compensatory increase for severe disability premium, so the new amount is £34·30.
There will therefore be three different rates of payment for benefits that were paid at the same rate. It would also be sensible if the Under-Secretary of State studied the compensation package to ensure that such weekly payments are treated in exactly the same way.
The Government's attempt to reduce social security benefits in the first round of the review of the social security budget has focused on the cost of people on invalidity benefit. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) was right to say that the cost of invalidity benefit has increased considerably.
I shall not restate the arguments about the Government's previous decisions—notably before the 1987 election, when every Department was asked to find any mechanism possible to take people off the unemployment register. The social security team therefore pushed as many people as possible on to invalidity benefit, which reduced unemployment significantly so that the Government could go into that election saying that unemployment was falling. The then chairman of the Conservative party identified that factor as the crucial indicator to the public of the Tory Administration's competence. The Government set in train the consequences that they must deal with now.
I am not denying that some people are in receipt of invalidity benefit who should not be. We have never


questioned that fact. We question strongly, however, whether the new medical test is the right mechanism to assess more sensitively those who are genuinely unable to work. During the coming weeks, we shall argue our case strongly in the Standing Committee of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill. We strongly disagree with the Government about those disabled people who get through the hoop of the medical test, convince the Government that they are incapable of work but then hit the double whammy—the amount of money available to them is reduced.
If the Government are saying that invalidity benefit payments were reasonable, but that too many people were claiming, how can they say—after reducing the number of people eligible—that the benefit is costing too much money?
Two groups of people in identical circumstances and with identical disabilities can pass the incapacity test, but receive different benefits. As I said, I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Castle Point if he can justify the fact that, under the present invalidity benefit scheme, one receives the full rate of payment after six months, but under the new scheme one will not do so until after 12 months; that under the old scheme, one received additions for adult and child dependants, but under the new scheme, those are severely curtailed; and that under the old scheme, one was entitled to additional pension, but under the new scheme, there is no additional pension. I shall give way to him if he can justify the fact that, although the numbers eligible have been reduced by the new medical test, the amount of money that they receive is also being reduced.
I think that we can understand hon. Members' failure to understand the Government's legislation. They are reducing the number of people eligible for benefit and reducing the amount paid to one of the most vulnerable groups of people. For many months and years—probably for life—such people will have to rely on the new incapacity benefit, but they will receive less money than they were previously entitled to on invalidity benefit. That represents a straight political choice and the Government are using disabled people as a scapegoat for their economic mismanagement and public sector problems.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said so effectively, the consequence of that policy will be to reverse the trend that was set in motion before the 1987 election and to push people claiming disability benefit—the new incapacity benefit—back on to unemployment benefit. They have reversed the trend that was used to manipulate the electorate before that election. By the Government's own admission, during the next two years 200,000 of those people will claim unemployment benefit, at a tremendous cost to the social security budget.
Those people will probably fail the medical test by a small margin, but, because of changes to statutory sick pay—the burden is being placed on businesses, which will recruit more carefully—they are less likely to gain employment and more likely to become long-term unemployed. That trend is increasing, as we have seen from the unemployment figures, and Government policies will add to the increase.
I have spent a long time on the subject of disability, but disabled people are often a forgotten group in society and this sort of debate allows us to range widely over their needs. The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said, quite honestly and openly—I commend him for it—that the number of people receiving disability working allowance had been a disappointment.
From April 1995, people receiving disability working allowance will be eligible for help with their health charges. On 1 December, the Secretary of State said that people on that allowance "will automatically qualify" for such help. However, I understand that those people will have to undergo a savings test and only those with capital of less than £8,000 will qualify for help with the charges. Please could the Under-Secretary of State clarify whether all of them will qualify automatically—as the Secretary of State said—or whether the savings test will be applied and only those who pass it will qualify? Such clarification would be very welcome.
The independent living fund was another significant area of debate last year. One year has gone by and it is clear that many organisations for the disabled and people with disabilities are outraged at the failure of the new fund to meet effectively their real needs. Very few people have received a grant under the scheme and although the Minister with responsibility for the disabled said that the roll-over costs significantly outstrip the new fund's budget, all that proves is how inadequate the fund is.
When the extension fund and the new independent living fund were debated in the House, we highlighted the problem of administration and the fact that money comes from social services up to a cut-off point, at which it is topped up from the fund. That is causing administrative chaos. I urge the Government to look at that again, and particularly at the independent living fund so that it can make direct cash payments to disabled people, in conjunction with care packages drawn up by social services offices, to ensure that real care is provided, and the money can be used effectively, sensitively and imaginatively by recipients of the fund.
The situation is becoming intolerable. In many ways, the fund has no relevance to the way in which the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 is being implemented. We urge the Government to think again about the way that they have excluded people over 65, but particularly terminally ill people, from receiving money from the fund.
Under the old system, 34 per cent. of the case load of the independent living fund were people over 65. They have benefited greatly from its provisions. It is outrageous to exclude them and terminally ill people. That is quite unacceptable. I hope that the Government will reconsider the workings, operation and funding of the independent living fund.
It is always relevant to debate the social fund at this time of year, because it is absolutely clear and has been stated year on year since it has been in operation that people are treated differently depending on what day of the year they go through the revolving door to seek help from the fund. If one goes through it on 1 April, one stands some chance of receiving a grant or loan.
At this time of year, the situation is chaotic, and the people—in identical circumstances to those who went through at the beginning of the financial year—are told that there is no opportunity to receive help from the fund. I back up those statements with information that I received from various offices around the country. In Greater Manchester, for example, a note went out from the social fund officers saying:
Please find enclosed a copy of your revised guidance on priorities for Social Fund Loans. You will note that, generally speaking, we are only in a position to consider paymetn for high priority items which avoid a risk to health. This situation is likely


to continue to the end of this financial year unless more funds are forthcoming. Otherwise we would be heading for a large overspend.
Revising the guideline is common in the operation of the social fund. As the year goes on, the money for care grants or loans is prioritised and continually limited. In Greater Manchester at the moment, one has not only to be in a high priority—many categories of people are—but face a risk to one's health. It is almost impossible to get a crucial element, the replacement of the old supplementary payments, which were for essential items such as clothing and household goods to enable people to set up in new home and maintain a certain standard. That is no longer on the agenda. One must have a risk to health, but nothing else.
I have similar statements from other parts of the country. A note was sent to me from the Benefits Agency in Sheffield East. It says:
Following legal advice",
it had to review the situation on the social fund,
but the criteria for which budgeting loans were to be awarded was as a result restricted to situations where there would be severe hardship or serious risk to the health and safety".
Again, that limits the priority category to a particular group.
I received a memo from the East Nottinghamshire office of the agency—it could have come from anywhere in the country. It stated quite clearly that only high-priority cases would be considered, and at a later stage those high-priority cases were limited to certain groups within the high-priority category. The Government recognised that there were high priorities, but then limited them as the year went by. That guidance on how social fund officers should operate the scheme is up to date.
The Government have said loudly and clearly that they do not have the budget to meet the needs of people who may be in identical circumstances to those who previously received help from the social fund. I urge the Government to look at the funding through the social fund. They triumphantly announced that people would receive help to top up their meagre benefits through income support. It must be stressed that they are loans and that people must repay them.
People are being given only a limited opportunity—an opportunity they may resist—to take out a loan, which is then taken out of their benefits to repay. Even that system is falling apart at the seams as we enter the last quarter of the financial year.
One or two other points are worth raising. We welcome any attempt by the Government to look at child care costs and the way that child care can be an essential element in trying to enable mothers, particularly, to get back into the workplace. The announcment in the Budget of the disregard in family credit for that purpose is obviously to be welcomed.
I press the Under-Secretary on exactly how much help will be given. On the cost of child care, the £40 disregard and the £28 net element is clearly not enough on a day-to-day basis. They may afford the opportunity for post-school help and perhaps offer some help on a day a week. But if one looks at the real child care costs, anywhere in the country, it is much more realistic to talk about £80, £90 or £100 a week to look after children.

Although we welcome the step in the right direction, I urge the Government to look at the reality of their proposals to see whether more can be given.
Lowest-income families already receive maximum family credit. As the arrangements on child care are based on a disregard, if one is already on maximum family credit one clearly cannot receive any more. There is no help with child care costs for the lowest-income families receiving family credit. It seems rather perverse that one does not help those in greatest need.
As the scale increases, only a proportion of the £28 will be available. Will the Under-Secretary of State tell us how many people will receive no help? How many people who receive £28 will receive only £10? How many will receive £20? how many will receive the full £28? That will be an interesting spread within family credit. I hope that he is able to gain that information before he replies. If not, I hope that he will write to me with that information as soon as possible.
We have had a good deal of discussion on statutory sick pay. We have dealt with the amendment from the other place. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden asked how it will be dealt with when the Government have completed their consultation process. We raised that when we considered Lords amendments, but we continually seek reassurance on that point because the Government tend to operate by regulation and instrument rather than by primary legislation. We do not want the order to slip through without proper scrutiny and debate.

Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bradley: The hon. Gentleman failed to address the issue that I presented to him, so I am reluctant to give way, but since he has sat through my speech quietly, I will be generous.

Dr. Spink: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We all want to help truly vulnerable people as much as we can and the hon. Gentleman has presented us with a wish list of many cost enhancements. Has he costed that list? Does he have authority from his colleagues to propose that additional spending?

Mr. Bradley: I do not believe that I did present a wish list; I was commenting on Government policy. I do not need to cost the social fund, for example, because the Government say that it is self-financing, because it is based on a loan system. The money is paid back.

Dr. Spink: What about child care?

Mr. Bradley: I have cited the social fund as an example. The Government—not I—say that it is self-financing. I do not have to justify asking the Government to put more money into a fund that they claim to be self-financing. That seems reasonable to me. We do not have to make the obvious point about trying desperately not to put more people onto unemployment benefit, which costs an average £9,000 a year in tax and lost benefit per person on the unemployment register. We would try to set the economic conditions that would reduce unemployment and so free resources to fund other essential care and benefit packages.
This has been a worthwhile and interesting debate. We welcome any increases in benefit levels, however meagre they may be. We have expressed our doubts about some benefits that have fallen through the net this time and about


the way in which the VAT compensation package has been introduced. We are concerned that some benefits have not been compensated for in the same way as others, which means that certain benefits are no longer in kilter with others. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurance about those benefits.
When we re-run the debate in 12 months' time, I hope that we will not have to raise, yet again, the incredibly important matters of the independent living fund, the social fund, carers, preserved income support for those in residential homes and all those other categories of people who seem to be forgotten continually by the Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): This has been an interesting debate, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) has pointed out. It has covered a wide range of subjects, some of them even related to the orders before the House, which is always a great consolation.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) opened the debate for the Opposition by saying that the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State contained few surprises. I had intended to intervene then to say that there would be no surprises in the speech by the hon. Gentleman, but, as it turned out, it did contain one or two surprises.
One of the surprises was that the hon. Member for Garscadden was unable to be very specific in response to questions from my hon. Friends about what Opposition policy might be on certain matters. The hon. Gentleman was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) whether the level of social security spending was enough. The answer was rather like a version of, "We wouldn't have started from here." The hon. Gentleman suggested that economic circumstances would be magically different in the future. He suggested that the economic cycle would be abolished and that there would not be unemployment under a Labour Government, so spending priorities could be different. That was not a credible answer.
The hon. Member for Garscadden suggested that a great deal of money was being spent in the wrong way, but he did not go on to say where the sweeping reductions, which were presumably implied by that statement, might be made.
When my right hon. Friend asked the hon. Gentleman about the schemes for pensions proposed by the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), it was surprising that the hon. Gentleman did not feel that he should rule out the means-testing of the pension, or whatever it was that his right hon. Friend proposed.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister has made my point by saying, "or whatever it was". The proposition that he is putting to me is that I should have ruled out my right hon. Friend's suggestion, but I made it clear that I had not had the opportunity to study it. The proposal had been verbally presented on a television programme which I had not seen. I suspect that the Minister is in the same position because he said that I should have ruled out that proposal "whatever it was". That seems an odd position to take up.

Mr. Hague: The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) clearly suggested that there would be some adjustment to the pension as people's incomes rose. To me that is equivalent to means testing, whatever the detail behind the right hon. Gentleman's proposition. We will await the time when the hon. Member for Garscadden receives advice from the Commission for Social Justice in order to clarify that matter.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the guaranteed minimum pension and what discussions may have taken place. The problem of the complexity of that pension and the way in which it interacts with SERPS was raised by the Goode committee as one of the areas in which the Government might seek to simplify arrangements for occupational pension schemes. The Government fell it right to issue a series of consultation papers to take forward discussions on the recommendations of the Goode report.
The Government issued one of their consultation papers about the future of the guaranteed minimum pension, which raised the question of whether there should be an alternative test of how to contract out of SERPS. That alternative test would have to offer security for the rights of occupational pension scheme members. That is what the discussions were about. The Government are now analysing the results of that consultation exercise. If we have any proposals to bring forward as a result, we will do so in due course.
The hon. Member for Garscadden also asked about the guaranteed minimum pension and whether there was any equivalent in personal pensions. There is an equivalent, in that the contracted-out rebate is paid as a minimum contributions into a personal pension. It is then used when a personal pension is turned into an annuity with similar rights to a guaranteed minimum pension.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister is perhaps flattering me, because I said that there was no comparable mechanism in the private pensions sector. I also went on to ask him whether he was satisfied with the present level of regulation, given the problems that have emerged in recent times. Could he address that question?

Mr. Hague: There is an equivalent in that the minimum contributions are paid into personal pensions and personal pensions are turned into an annuity with similar rights in terms of inflation increases up to a certain level, widows' benefits and so on as a guaranteed minimum pension.
The question of regulation is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend at the Treasury. The Securities and Investments Board is currently reviewing what has happened and the alleged mis-selling of personal pensions. It will produce its findings and thoughts on the matter later in the year.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked what is happening to statutory sick pay. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not appear to be listening to my answers, but no doubt the hon. Member for Withington will write it all down for him. The Government will consult industry, unions and other interested bodies now that the amendment on it, which was passed in the other place, has been agreed by the House.
The hon. Member referred to the alternative of a two-week period rather than a four-week period for the reimbursement of small employers as costing "only £10 million". We occasionally get such references from the Opposition about things that will "only" cost


£10 million. The trouble with tens of millions of pounds is that they add up to rather a lot. If the hon. Gentleman thought it through, I am not sure whether he would consider that alternative an appropriate use of an additional £10 million, especially when small employers and employers in general stand to gain from the changes to statutory sick pay, when the reductions in national insurance contributions are taken into account.
Small employers in particular stand to gain because they tend to have lower sickness rates and they tend to employ many people for whom they are paying the lower rates of employers' national insurance contributions.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister so often tempts me to intervene. However, he is being a little unfair. I said that I considered the figures to be surprisingly low, which illustrates or underlines the fact that only a small percentage of the work force was covered by the provision. Will the Minister give us some idea of what is in the ministerial mind? I recognise that consultation is taking place, but presumably it is a concession granted on the basis that there is a need for action. Is that a fair assumption?

Mr. Hague: The Bill was changed and the Government are consulting industry and trade unions in an effort to make the alternative scheme work. If such a way can be found, we shall lay regulations before the House. If it cannot, there will be a report, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There would be little point in giving a commitment now that there must be a debate on that report if in the meantime employers agreed that for some reason such a scheme would not work. There are many mechanisms in the House and in the other place for securing a debate and no doubt they can be pursued if necessary.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the job seeker's allowance and the reduction from 12 to six months in contributory payments. Two thirds of people who become unemployed leave the count within six months and many of those who remain will be able to claim job seeker's allowance on a means-tested basis or national insurance credits. The measure targets resources on those in need. That is one of the themes that the Government pursue in their reform of the social security system.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) began his speech by saying that he had lost an argument that he was right to lose. That comment could have come only from the Liberal Democrat Bench. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for that little unfairness to him.
He talked at some length about pensioners' living standards. That raises the debate which often arises during Question Time and other times in the House about pensioners' living standards which, as one of my hon. Friends observed, have improved by 42 per cent. on average over the past 15 years. The percentage of pensioners in the bottom quintile of income distribution has fallen from 38 per cent. in 1979 to 24 per cent. on the latest figures. Therefore, some of the points that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) made earlier are not valid. His comments about pensioners incomes are not true.
In general, pensioners have benefited greatly in the past 15 years. The Government, recognising that not all have

shared equally in that, have directed additional resources to those at the bottom of the income scale—£1 billion in extra resources since 1988.

Mr. Kirkwood: I understand the Minister, but in relation to the changes in VAT, relatively small proportions of retired people are suffering terrible adverse financial hardship. What specifically is he doing to address that?

Mr. Hague: As the hon. Gentleman knows, all pensioners are receiving the additional amounts to help with VAT—50p in the first year for single pensioners and 70p a week for couples—a substantial piece of assistance which will pay the lion's share of pensioners' increased fuel bills as a result of value added tax.
Like those on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also implied that social security spending should be higher, but again it is not clear how he proposes to finance it and from where he proposes to take the larger share of the gross domestic product that he would spend on those measures.
The hon. Member raised a number of points about residential care. They are matters for my ministerial colleagues at the Department of Health that I shall draw to their attention. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) also raised a number of matters relating to the Department of Health and the Department of Employment. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) who sadly is not with us—

Mr. Dewar: He has been committed.

Mr. Hague: The hon. Member for Garscadden says that his hon. Friend has been committed; I am not sure where.
The hon. Member for Islington, North referred to a caricature of the Government's position as no longer being able to afford the universal pension or the welfare state. That is not the case. The Government's objective is to ensure that the welfare state is sustainable and affordable in future.
Like many Labour Members, he called for the state pension age to be reduced to 60, although that is not the policy of the Opposition Front Bench. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman considers that to be the best use of £12 billion—that is what it would cost to equalise the state pension age at 60 instead of 65. That money would go to men between 60 and 65, many of whom would still be in employment or have occupational pension schemes in addition to anything they might receive from the state.
Most of the comments of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden referred to my colleagues in other Departments and I shall draw his remarks to their attention. He also made a plea for child benefit to continue. The Government's manifesto commitment to child benefit is clear, but I advise the hon. Gentleman to have a word with his hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench before the Social Justice Commission concludes its deliberations.
The hon. Member for Newport, West has left the Chamber, so I shall move to some of the other remarks made during the debate.
The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as interested only in costs and not in a sensible and coherent set of reforms. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out very clear principles for the reform of the social security system: to focus help on those in greatest need, to diminish



disincentives, to improve the delivery of benefits, to bear down on fraud and to encourage personal responsibility. The measures that he has announced are in line with that.
The Government's commitment to the system has been shown by our record since 1979. Extra help has been focused on those in greatest need, such as less well-off pensioners, to whom I have referred, and low-income families who have had extra help over the past few years totalling £1 billion. Extra benefits to disabled people have totalled £5 billion since 1978–79 in real terms.
The focus of those policies is continuing with the uprating statement: to be generous to those in need while being realistic about what the nation can afford. The uprating will provide a typical low-income working couple with two children with an increase of £4·30 per week. The income of an unemployed couple with two children will also increase by £4·30 per week; that of an unemployed lone parent with one child will increase by £2·90 per week. A typical unemployed family will be £17 a week better off in real terms, after allowing for inflation, than in 1979.
We should compare that with the record of the Government in the 1970s, when spending on families fell by 7 per cent. in total. They have little right to criticise us on these matters.

Mr. Kirkwood: Where were you in the 1970s?

Mr. Hague: I was at school, but I was watching closely the activities of the Labour Government. I recall writing down these figures at the time.
As my right hon. Friend has described, therefore, we have kept our manifesto pledges to pensioners and to families. We have gone beyond that in providing substantial extra help with the cost of VAT on fuel. We are laying the foundations for reforms of social security which will preserve and sustain it in the future, and in doing so we are moving in step with many other countries of the western world who are also reforming their social security systems; countries throughout the European Community and across the rest of the world.
They are raising contributions in France and in most other member states of the European Community; they are linking the uprating of benefits to prices rather than to wages in the Netherlands, France and Italy; reducing unemployment benefit in Germany, France and Spain and reducing its duration in Denmark and Germany; reducing disability benefits in the Netherlands and Ireland; tightening up on sickness benefits in Italy, Spain and the Netherlands; reforming pensions by raising the pension age in Italy, Portugal, Germany and Greece; freezing family benefits in France and the Netherlands, or targeting them more closely in Germany; tackling fraud in Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Portugal; and encouraging more private provision of pensions in Italy, Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain.
Alone in the European Community, the Labour party is content not to have a policy for the reform and improvement of the social security system and content to make complacent criticisms of Government policy without having an alternative to put in its place. If this is not the right percentage by which to uprate benefits, what is the right percentage? Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have not told us. If it is not the right way to reform incapacity benefits, what is the right way?
If ours is not the right approach to the state pension age, how would they finance the alternative approaches which

they are themselves divided about adopting? If our proposals for ensuring that the social security system can be sustained in the future are not the right ones, what are the alternatives?
The speeches of those on the Opposition Front Bench always draw back from a definitive policy. They always leave the implication that spending would be higher if they were in office, but they are all the time fearful of the brooding presence of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who has told them not to make any specific commitments.
We bring to the House tonight orders which provide specifically for the uprating of social security benefits, for the indexation of guaranteed minimum pensions provided by employers, for the reduction of employers' national insurance contributions, for a new system of assisting small employers with the cost of statutory sick pay; and we do so in the context of policies that will ensure that our social security system is affordable and well targeted in the future. They are policies which are realistic and well judged, to which no alternative has been expressed in the debate and which we are confident will therefore enjoy the approval of the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 53.

Division No. 129]
[9.01 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Colvin, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Congdon, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Conway, Derek


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Ashby, David
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Duncan, Alan


Batiste, Spencer
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bellingham, Henry
Dunn, Bob


Bendall, Vivian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Beresford, Sir Paul
Elletson, Harold


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Faber, David


Boswell, Tim
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fishburn, Dudley


Bowden, Andrew
Forman, Nigel


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Brandreth, Gyles
Forth, Eric


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bright, Graham
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Browning, Mrs. Angela
French, Douglas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fry, Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Gallie, Phil


Butcher, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Butler, Peter
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Butterfill, John
Gill, Christopher


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gillan, Cheryl


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Carrington, Matthew
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Hague, William


Cash, William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clappison, James
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hannam, Sir John


Coe, Sebastian
Hargreaves, Andrew






Harris, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hawkins, Nick
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hawksley, Warren
Richards, Rod


Hayes, Jerry
Riddick, Graham


Hendry, Charles
Robathan, Andrew


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hunter, Andrew
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Jack, Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jenkin, Bernard
Shaw, David (Dover)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Shersby, Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sims, Roger


Kirkhope, Timothy
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knapman, Roger
Soames, Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Spink, Dr Robert


Knox, Sir David
Spring, Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Steen, Anthony


Legg, Barry
Stephen, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Stern, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sumberg, David


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sweeney, Walter


Lidington, David
Sykes, John


Lightbown, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Temple-Morris, Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thomason, Roy


MacKay, Andrew
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Maclean, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maginnis, Ken
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Tracey, Richard


Mans, Keith
Trend, Michael


Marland, Paul
Trimble, David


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Merchant, Piers
Viggers, Peter


Mills, Iain
Walden, George


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Wallace, James


Monro, Sir Hector
Ward, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moss, Malcolm
Waterson, Nigel


Needham, Richard
Watts, John


Nelson, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Whitney, Ray


Nicholls, Patrick
Whittingdale, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Widdecombe, Ann


Norris, Steve
Willetts, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wood, Timothy


Ottaway, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Page, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Paice, James



Pawsey, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Pickles, Eric





NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Barnes, Harry
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bayley, Hugh
Connarty, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Byers, Stephen
Cryer, Bob


Callaghan, Jim
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dixon, Don


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dowd, Jim





Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Etherington, Bill
Morgan, Rhodri


Flynn, Paul
Mudie, George


Galbraith, Sam
Mullin, Chris


Gapes, Mike
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Hara, Edward


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Olner, William


Home Robertson, John
Parry, Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Patchett, Terry


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Livingstone, Ken
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum
Soley, Clive


McMaster, Gordon
Spellar, John


McWilliam, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Madden, Max
Wise, Audrey


Mahon, Alice



Marek, Dr John
Tellers for the Noes:


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Mr. Terry Lewis and Mr. Jim Cunningham.


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)



Meale, Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

The House proceeded to a Division—

Sir Teddy Taylor: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the event of the motion being defeated, would it be possible to allow an emergency debate to assist my pensioners in Southend? I understand that the Opposition are now voting to stop a pension increase greatly needed by poor people.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Why are Labour blocking it?

Sir Teddy Taylor: (seated and covered): If the increase is blocked, there will be huge hardship for pensioners in Southend and throughout the country. If the Opposition win the vote, may we have an emergency debate about what we can do to help the pensioners deprived of their pension increase?

Mr. Arnold: Pensioners of Jarrow.

Sir Teddy Taylor: (seated and covered): This is a serious question.

Mr. Arnold: Jarrow pensioners.

Sir Teddy Taylor: (seated and covered): Pensioners are having a difficult time these days—

Mr. Arnold: Why are Labour trying to block the pension increase?

Sir Teddy Taylor: (seated and covered): Please keep quiet. [Interruption.] This is serious; this is not funny.

Mr. Arnold: We are being serious.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) well knows that the Chair never anticipates a situation.

Sir Teddy Taylor: (seated and covered): This is a very serious matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accept that it is an entirely serious matter, but the point is that the Chair does not anticipate a situation. Let us see whether that situation evolves.

Mr. Matthew Banks: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a new point of order?

Mr. Banks: (seated and covered): Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you for an emergency debate to discuss the motion before us, and that which the House voted on a few moments ago, concerning the fact that Labour Members, with the apparent connivance of the Opposition Chief Whip, have been voting against the uprating of social security benefits and against pension increases in general?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are voting on motion No. 3 on the Order Paper. That is all that we are doing at the moment. Anything else is pure conjecture.

Mr. Banks: (seated and covered: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am referring to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With or without respect, that is my ruling.

The House having divided: Ayes 231, Noes 50.

Division No. 130]
[9.15 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Conway, Derek


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Day, Stephen


Ashby, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dover, Den


Baldry, Tony
Duncan, Alan


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bellingham, Henry
Dunn, Bob


Bendall, Vivian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Beresford, Sir Paul
Elletson, Harold


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boswell, Tim
Faber, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fabricant, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowis, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forman, Nigel


Brandreth, Gyles
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brazier, Julian
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bright, Graham
Forth, Eric


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Burns, Simon
French, Douglas


Burt, Alistair
Fry, Sir Peter


Butcher, John
Gale, Roger


Butler, Peter
Gallie, Phil


Butterfill, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gillan, Cheryl


Carrington, Matthew
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Cash, William
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clappison, James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Grylls, Sir Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Hague, William


Colvin, Michael
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Congdon, David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)





Hampson, Dr Keith
Pickles, Eric


Hannam, Sir John
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Harris, David
Richards, Rod


Hawkins, Nick
Riddick, Graham


Hawksley, Warren
Robathan, Andrew


Hayes, Jerry
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hendry, Charles
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hunter, Andrew
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jack, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jenkin, Bernard
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Shersby, Michael


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sims, Roger


King, Rt Hon Tom
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knapman, Roger
Soames, Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Speed, Sir Keith


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knox, Sir David
Spink, Dr Robert


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spring, Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Steen, Anthony


Legg, Barry
Stephen, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Stern, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sumberg, David



Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sweeney, Walter


Lidington, David
Sykes, John


Lightbown, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Temple-Morris, Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thomason, Roy


MacKay, Andrew
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Maclean, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Malone, Gerald
Tracey, Richard


Mans, Keith
Trend, Michael


Marland, Paul
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Viggers, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Walden, George


Mills, Iain
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wallace, James


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Ward, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waterson, Nigel


Moss, Malcolm
Watts, John


Needham, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Nelson, Anthony
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Whitney, Ray


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Whittingdale, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Willetts, David


Norris, Steve
Wood, Timothy


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Yeo, Tim


Ottaway, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Page, Richard



Paice, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Pawsey, James



Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth





NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)



Barnes, Harry
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bayley, Hugh
Canavan, Dennis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Chisholm, Malcolm


Callaghan, Jim
Connarty, Michael


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Corbyn, Jeremy






Cox, Tom
Madden, Max


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Mahon, Alice


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marek, Dr John


Dixon, Don
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Dowd, Jim
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Etherington, Bill
Meale, Alan


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Galbraith, Sam
Mudie, George


Gapes, Mike
Mullin, Chris


George, Bruce
Olner, William


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Parry, Robert


Gunnell, John
Patchett, Terry


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pike, Peter L.


Home Robertson, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hood, Jimmy
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Spellar, John


Lewis, Terry
Wise, Audrey


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)



McAvoy, Thomas
Tellers for the Noes:


Macdonald, Calum
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.


McMaster, Gordon

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Draft Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Amendment Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 10th February, be approved—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. David Lidington: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have always understood it to be the procedure in the House that votes had to follow the voices. Will you therefore rule on whether it is in order for Opposition Members who have called with their voices for compensation for VAT now to vote against that compensation, presumably on the ground that it is more than the 50p a week, which they regard as adequate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Voices on a Division are specific to that Division.

The House having divided: Ayes 227, Noes 52.

Division No. 131]
[9.26 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cash, William


Ashby, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Chapman, Sydney


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clappison, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Coe, Sebastian


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Colvin, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Congdon, David


Bendall, Vivian
Conway, Derek


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowden, Andrew
Dover, Den


Bowis, John
Duncan, Alan


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brandreth, Gyles
Dunn, Bob


Brazier, Julian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Elletson, Harold


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Butcher, John
Faber, David


Butler, Peter
Fabricant, Michael





Fenner, Dame Peggy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fishburn, Dudley

Nelson, Anthony


Forman, Nigel
Neubert, Sir Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Nicholls, Patrick


Forth, Eric
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Ottaway, Richard


French, Douglas
Page, Richard


Fry, Sir Peter
Paice, James


Gale, Roger
Paisley, Rev Ian


Gallie, Phil
Patnick, Irvine


Gardiner, Sir George
Pawsey, James


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gill, Christopher
Pickles, Eric


Gillan, Cheryl
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Rendel, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Richards, Rod


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Riddick, Graham


Grylls, Sir Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Hague, William
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hannam, Sir John
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Harris, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hawkins, Nick
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hawksley, Warren
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hayes, Jerry
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Hendry, Charles
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Shersby, Michael


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Sims, Roger


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunter, Andrew
Soames, Nicholas


Jack, Michael
Speed, Sir Keith


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Jenkin, Bernard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Spink, Dr Robert


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Spring, Richard


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knapman, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Stephen, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Stern, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Stewart, Allan


Knox, Sir David
Sweeney, Walter


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sykes, John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Legg, Barry
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Leigh, Edward
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Thomason, Roy


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Lidington, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lightbown, David
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lord, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Tracey, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Maclean, David
Viggers, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Walden, George


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Wallace, James


Maginnis, Ken
Ward, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Malone, Gerald
Waterson, Nigel


Mans, Keith
Watts, John


Marland, Paul
Wells, Bowen


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Merchant, Piers
Whitney, Ray


Mills, Iain
Whittingdale, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Widdecombe, Ann


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Willetts, David






Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Michael Brown.


Young, Rt Hon Sir George





NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Barnes, Harry
McAvoy, Thomas


Bayley, Hugh
Macdonald, Calum


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McMaster, Gordon


Boateng, Paul
McWilliam, John


Callaghan, Jim
Madden, Max


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Mahon, Alice


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Marek, Dr John


Canavan, Dennis
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Meale, Alan


Connarty, Michael
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mudie, George


Cox, Tom
Mullin, Chris


Cryer, Bob
O'Hara, Edward


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Olner, William



Dixon, Don
Parry, Robert


Dowd, Jim
Patchett, Terry


Etherington, Bill
Pike, Peter L.


Flynn, Paul
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)



Galbraith, Sam
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Gapes, Mike
Skinner, Dennis


George, Bruce
Spellar, John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wise, Audrey


Gunnell, John



Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Tellers for the Noes:


Home Robertson, John
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours and Mr. Terry Lewis.


Hood, Jimmy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Draft Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Amendment Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 10th February, be approved—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

The House having divided: Ayes 221, Noes 46.

Division No. 132]
[9.37 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cash, William


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Alton, David
Chapman, Sydney


Arbuthnot, James
Clappison, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Coe, Sebastian


Ashby, David
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Congdon, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Conway, Derek


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baldry, Tony
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Beggs, Roy
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bellingham, Henry
Day, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Beresford, Sir Paul
Devlin, Tim


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Den


Boswell, Tim
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bowden, Andrew
Dunn, Bob


Bowis, John
Durant, Sir Anthony


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Elletson, Harold


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Faber, David


Burns, Simon
Fabricant, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Butler, Peter
Fishburn, Dudley


Butterfill, John
Forman, Nigel


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Carrington, Matthew
Forth, Eric





Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Page, Richard


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Paice, James


French, Douglas
Patnick, Irvine


Fry, Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Gale, Roger
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gallie, Phil
Pickles, Eric


Gardiner, Sir George
Porter, David (Waveney)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Rendel, David


Gill, Christopher
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Gillan, Cheryl
Richards, Rod


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Riddick, Graham


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Robathan, Andrew


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hague, William
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hampson, Dr Keith
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hannam, Sir John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Harris, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hawkins, Nick
Shersby, Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Sims, Roger


Hendry, Charles
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Soames, Nicholas


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Speed, Sir Keith


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Hunter, Andrew
Spink, Dr Robert


Jack, Michael
Spring, Richard


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Jenkin, Bernard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Stephen, Michael


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Stern, Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom
Stewart, Allan


Knapman, Roger
Sweeney, Walter


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sykes, John


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Knox, Sir David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Thomason, Roy


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Legg, Barry
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Leigh, Edward
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Thurnham, Peter


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lidington, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Lightbown, David
Tracey, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tredinnick, David


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Trend, Michael


Lord, Michael
Tyler, Paul


Lynne, Ms Liz
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


MacKay, Andrew
Walden, George


Maclean, David
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Wallace, James


Maginnis, Ken
Ward, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Malone, Gerald
Waterson, Nigel


Mans, Keith
Watts, John


Marland, Paul
Wells, Bowen


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Merchant, Piers
Whitney, Ray


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Whittingdale, John


Mills, Iain
Widdecombe, Ann



Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Willetts, David


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Wood, Timothy


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Yeo, Tim


Nelson, Anthony
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Neubert, Sir Michael



Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Michael Brown.


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)



Oppenheim, Phillip







NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry
McAvoy, Thomas


Bayley, Hugh
Macdonald, Calum


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McMaster, Gordon


Callaghan, Jim
McWilliam, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Mahon, Alice


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Marek, Dr John


Canavan, Dennis
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Meale, Alan


Connarty, Michael
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
O'Hara, Edward


Cox, Tom
Olner, William


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Parry, Robert


Dixon, Don
Patchett, Terry


Dowd, Jim
Pike, Peter L.


Etherington, Bill
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Flynn, Paul
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Galbraith, Sam
Skinner, Dennis


George, Bruce
Spellar, John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wise, Audrey


Gunnell, John



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Hood, Jimmy
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. George Mudie.


Illsley, Eric

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put,

That the draft statutory sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order 1994 which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 44.

Division No. 133]
[9.48 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coe, Sebastian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Colvin, Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Congdon, David



Alton, David
Conway, Derek


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cran, James


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Atkins, Robert
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Devlin, Tim


Baldry, Tony

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dover, Den


Beggs, Roy
Duncan, Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bendall, Vivian
Dunn, Bob


Beresford, Sir Paul
Durant, Sir Anthony


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Elletson, Harold


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bowden, Andrew
Faber, David


Bowis, John
Fabricant, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brandreth, Gyles
Fishburn, Dudley


Brazier, Julian

Forman, Nigel


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Burns, Simon
Forth, Eric


Burt, Alistair
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Butler, Peter
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butterfill, John
French, Douglas


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fry, Sir Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Gale, Roger


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gallie, Phil


Carrington, Matthew
Gardiner, Sir George


Carttiss, Michael
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Cash, William
Gill, Christopher


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gillan, Cheryl


Chapman, Sydney
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clappison, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Greenway, John (Ryedale)





Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Grylls, Sir Michael
Pickles, Eric


Hague, William
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Rendel, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hampson, Dr Keith
Richards, Rod


Hannam, Sir John
Riddick, Graham


Hargreaves, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Harris, David
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hawkins, Nick
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hawksley, Warren
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hayes, Jerry
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hendry, Charles
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela



Horam, John
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shersby, Michael


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sims, Roger


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hunter, Andrew
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Jack, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Soames, Nicholas


Jenkin, Bernard
Speed, Sir Keith


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Spink, Dr Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom
Spring, Richard


Kirkwood, Archy
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Knapman, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Stephen, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Stern, Michael


Knox, Sir David
Stewart, Allan


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sweeney, Walter


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sykes, John


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Legg, Barry
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Thomason, Roy


Lidington, David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Lightbown, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Thurnham, Peter


Lord, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Maclean, David
Trend, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tyler, Paul


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Maginnis, Ken
Viggers, Peter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Walden, George


Malone, Gerald
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Mans, Keith
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Marland, Paul
Wallace, James


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Ward, John


Mates, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Waterson, Nigel


Merchant, Piers
Watts, John


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Wells, Bowen


Mills, Iain
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Whitney, Ray


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Whittingdale, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Widdecombe, Ann


Nelson, Anthony
Willetts, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wilshire, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wood, Timothy


Nicholls, Patrick
Yeo, Tim


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Oppenheim, Phillip



Page, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paice, James
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Michael Brown.


Patnick, Irvine



Pawsey, James





NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bayley, Hugh


Barnes, Harry
Callaghan, Jim






Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
McMaster, Gordon


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McWilliam, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Mahon, Alice


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Marek, Dr John


Connarty, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cox, Tom
Meale, Alan


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dixon, Don
Mudie, George


Dowd, Jim
O'Hara, Edward


Etherington, Bill
Olner, William


Flynn, Paul
Parry, Robert


George, Bruce
Patchett, Terry


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Pike, Peter L.


Gunnell, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Home Robertson, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hood, Jimmy
Spellar, John



Illsley, Eric
Wise, Audrey


Lewis, Terry



Loyden, Eddie
Tellers for the Noes:


McAvoy, Thomas
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Macdonald, Calum

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

London Cab Trade

Mr. Jim Dowd: I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Alan Howes, and 35 other London licensed taxi drivers.
It concludes:
Wherefore your petitioner prays that your honourable house will consider the following remedy; that minicab drivers register for "the knowledge" of the area where they at present work and that after acquiring the necessary standards they then be anchored to that area in order that other areas are not flooded with taxis. This process of integrating both factions into a one tier system would require that the Public Carriage Office take on additional (temporary) staff in order to cater with the additional workload. This process to cease midnight, 31st December 1999, at which stage we should have a fleet four times its present size but spread over the whole of the metropolis able to serve London's public not only as they would wish but as they both deserve and demand.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Pennine Wind Farms

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

10 pm

Sir Donald Thompson: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me at the appropriate hour—dead on time. This is an important debate. As many hon. Members will know, my constituency is in a most beautiful part of the country, and the Haworth moors have strong Bronte connections. I will not rehearse with the House tonight the objections to the wind farms that my constituents are voicing to Calderdale council, as that is a matter for the local council and local people. I must thank my local parish councils for all the help that they are giving to this cause.
It is important that hon. Members declare their interests. My interests in the energy industry are wide. I am a member of the Council of Europe's scientific and technology committee. I was a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. I am chairman of the Back-Bench sub-committee on industry and I am part of an all-party team which advises the industry sector of the nuclear energy industry—I met the unions only the other day.
However, the interest that is paramount is that of my constituents and their welfare. Their welfare is being threatened by wind farms. I say farms because we already have one at Ovenden moor. Two more are planned: one at Cock hill, known to the nation as Fleight hill, has 44 turbines and is a huge affair; the other is in the shadow of Stoodley Pike across the Pennine way. A third is already built and lies on my boundaries at Cliviger. A further wedge of land marching along my boundary has been earmarked for wind farm development by Lancashire county council.
We will live on a porcupine's back. It is an environmental disaster based on what seemed to be a good idea at the time; or, to use that well-known phrase, "it worked elsewhere". Wind farms are set to become the next great folly of the planet. They will be compared in future to that other folly—high-rise flats. They will go into the annals of well-intentioned mistakes. Stop it now, Minister.
I am glad to see my colleague from the Department of Trade and Industry here. He has been here before when I have had the Adjournment debate. Surely we should also have a Minister from the Department of the Environment. On cue, the Minister for the Environment and Countryside has arrived. My constituents would be happy, gentlemen, if the council and planners would take the Ministry's own guidance set out on 5 December 1991, which says that where a proposal would have a detrimental effect on the locality generally and on the amenities that ought in public interest be provided, those amenities should be protected. If that were to happen, there would be no more wind farms in Calder Valley.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Donald Thompson: No. Two of my hon. Friends wish to speak.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of the debate, the hon. Gentleman made a number of declarations. Most of them

were non-remunerated, but it should be made clear that the hon. Gentleman is in receipt of remuneration from the cross-party team of advisers to the British Nuclear Forum.

Sir Donald Thompson: That is why it is listed in the Register of Members' Interests. The book is designed to help those hon. Members who have outside interests.
According to a document produced by the Wind Energy Association, 30 per cent. of people in Cornwall, where construction has already taken place, still say that wind farms spoil the countryside.
The details of y constituents' objections have been set out to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs by the chairman of the Fleight hill wind farm opposition group, Mr. Michael Denton. He has argued that the time scale for determining the application on the 600-acre site, which will have a profound effect on the ecology of the area, has been no longer than that provided for considering an extension to a semi-detached house. He has also said that there has been no proper prior consultation, no account taken of recent experiences, and no court of reinstatement, and that the guidance issued has been out of date. His document will be available to the House when the Select Committee reports.
To disregard the historical connections, scale and outstanding location of Fleight hill would be a mistake. Bramwell Bronte worked at the local railway station and his sisters made the moors around the town world famous. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who represents Haworth, is sitting in front of me.
Many local people and national organisations have objected to the plan. The list of objectors includes Ted Hughes, the poet laureate, Lord Savile, Lord Houghton, David Bellamy, Bernard Ingham, English Nature, the Countryside Commission, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, the Ramblers Association, the Pennine Way Co-ordinated Project, the Open Spaces Society, the Civic Trust, the National Trust, the South Pennine Pack Horse Trail, the Agro-Gen Resistance Organisation of Wales and many more.
Lord Houghton has reminded us that some time ago people for ever wanted to dam streams, but now they want to spoil our mountains with wind farms.
I have with me a letter from a constituent of mine, Mrs. Barker, signed by more than 60 of the country's leading literary figures—a staggering number. That letter is against the despoliation, the rape, of the Bronte moors. It will be published in full in The Times Literary Supplement on Friday.
You will tell me, Minister, that all those groups will have their objections considered when the application is the subject of a public inquiry. You will tell us—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that he should be addressing the Chair, not the Minister.

Sir Donald Thompson: The Minister will remind me that he is acting in a quasi-judicial role. I know how much his boss, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Secretary of State for the Environment like to be proactive. I know that they are listening tonight. Surely they could reappraise their policy in the light of the reversal of public, environmental and scientific opinion about wind farms. They are objected to because, among other things, they cause noise, tourist blight and damage to water courses.
If the application is persisted with, it will surely be called in to the Department of the Environment for consideration. Ministers should change their policy before the application reaches them. I should like an early meeting to be held between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry to instruct the planning officers and their inspectors that wind farms in areas such as Calder Valley should be considered obtrusive. They should also rework the premium on unbuilt wind farms.
The planning guidance policy for renewable energy is now out of date. The mood of the country has changed. A document issued by Department of the Environment, written in 1991 at the height of the era of embellishment, when every directive from Europe or elsewhere became a Christmas tree to hang things on, stated:
The United Kingdom Government's policy is being pursued through: a continuing programme of research, development and demonstration in collaboration with industry; ensuring the establishment of a legal and administrative framework which allows renewable energy promoters to compete equitably in the market with conventional sources of energy.
Some of my constituents do not consider a profit of £600,000 a month for one small wind farm at Ovenden moor to be equitable competition.
The guidance published in 1991 set the premium for landfill gas at 5·7p, for sewage gas at 5·9p, for municipal gas at 6.·5p, for hydro-electricity at 6p, and for other waste at 5·9p as opposed to the wind premium of 11p. The producers should use a proportion of renewable energy, but the premium of 11 p per kWh has seduced them into spoiling our countryside.
Landfill gas, sewage gas and waste could and should supersede the easy option of ruining green field sites, moorlands, hills and mountains. If the premium were lowered and redistributed amongst the less easy options, the advantages would apply to other renewable energy sources which would properly come into play.
On 26 January this year, there was an interesting exchange of ideas in the Trade and Industry Select Committee, when the Minister for Energy said:
Clearly there is a level of controversy about wind farms …We have, as you know, got at the moment a bidding round out for renewables that includes wind farms. I think we have had something between 10 and 20 times the amount of bids for the renewable subsidy in terms of capacity which we are actually going to be able to subsidise or the consumers will be able to subsidise and clearly one of the issues is going to be how we allocate that capacity to different renewable sources and I have to say that I will be taking into account the concern about environmental aspects of wind farms when we come to make those allocation decisions".
That is a step in the right direction. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) said:
do you not think it might be a good idea to avert the subsidy away from wind farming?";
and the Minister replied:
It is interesting how the environmental argument has shifted with regard to wind farms. It was not very long ago that people were arguing that this was the best possible way of generating electricity".
We have tried wind farms and surely reached the conclusion that they are viable at sea or along a harbour wall. "Harnessing the Wind" by the energy technology support unit states that current estimates suggest that, in Britain, offshore wind turbulence could ultimately produce more than three times as much electricity as onshore machines. Wind speeds are good off shore and such sites might be environmentally more acceptable than those on land.
My constituents agree wholeheartedly with that. But the wind farm industry will not, because it would rather use the llp subsidy to build wind farms near the collecting points and take the profit. That is not what the 11p subsidy was for; it was for wind farms to be environmentally friendly.
New players are now moving into the game. Defence companies seeking to diversify will try anything for tuppence—or in this case 11p. According to an editorial in "Windfarm Monthly" in December 1993, they will not necessarily succeed. It stated that the Government would welcome big names but warned that a whole list of big companies
have left Europe and America littered with the corpses of their failed endeavours".
That is from their own magazine. He even makes the point that one of the companies in the Hebden Bridge project is only arguably acceptable.
Wind farming is now based on an over-generous premium which is drawing companies nearer towns. It is based on opportunist environmental policy. It is based on the idea of some people that they should wear a hair shirt to remind them of their environmental credentials and piety. My constituents are being asked to don the green hair shirt of wind farms, and they will not wear it. Now is the time for reappraisal, consultation, cessation. This is not a case of "not in my backyard"; it is a case of "not in my front garden".

Mr. Graham Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency Dickinson's dairy has had one windmill on its site for some time and, as far as I know, there has been no local opposition? It is seen as something of a novelty. Is he further aware, however, that a wind farm comprising 13 windmills has recently been sited at Ingbirchworth, near Penistone, and that it is noisy, unsightly and unpopular with the locals? Is it not clear that in areas of natural beauty wind farms are becoming blots on the landscape and should not be encouraged?

Sir Donald Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. His constituency is next to mine, as is that of the hon. Gentleman I see sitting opposite, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley are bitterly opposed to 13 turbines. I already have one wind farm, 41 more planned, another seven in the offing and those at Cliviger. My constituents do not want those wind farms, which can be seen from all over the country.

Mr. Gary Waller: I am glad to have the opportunity of supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) in the concern that he has expressed about the development of wind farms and wind turbines. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) said in his intervention, some turbine developments are popular while others are much less so. There is, in my view, a place for wind-powered energy, but turbines need to be sited extremely sensitively, and I am afraid that many of the developments that have taken place at an increasing pace in recent months are not in the right position.
In February last year, the Department of the Environment, together with the Welsh Office, published a planning policy guidance note on renewable energy. On visual intrusion and other matters about which people are concerned, reference was made to the introduction of


environmental assessments. It was made clear that wind generators would "shortly"—I emphasise the word "shortly"—be added to the categories of projects for which applications must be accompanied by an environmental statement
if the particular development proposed is likely to have significant environmental effects.
Although the word "shortly" was used, a great deal of time has gone by, a very large number of further applications have been submitted and we still await a statement. Apparently, the responses are still being considered. I believe that far too much time has gone by.
I would also say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. McLoughlin) that an environmental statement should be published in much broader categories of applications than those that the Government had in mind. For instance, it referred to developments within a national park or areas of outstanding natural beauty, those including more than 10 wind generators or where the total installed capacity was more than 5 MW. One generator or turbine badly placed can be extremely distracting and irritating to many people and particularly to visitors in an area like Haworth, the Bronte country and the Pennines, which are a great attraction for visitors to the north of England.
I would like to see many of these applications called in, because local authorities have a duty to notify the Secretary of State of any development which, by reason of its scale or the nature of the location of the land, would significantly prejudice the implementation of the development plan's policies and proposals. It is clear that, in any development plan for a local authority in our area, the attraction of tourists will be extremely important. I believe that any development involving wind turbines would prejudice that objective.
When he opened a wind farm recently, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy said that the Government did not have a specific target for wind energy, and that its success would depend on developers finding sites that were acceptable to the public and to planning authorities. Piecemeal development of that kind, however, is simply not acceptable to many of my constituents. We need a strategy: we need to ensure that wind farms and wind turbines are put in the right places. The more time goes by before we develop such a strategy, the more we shall regret the bad mistakes that blight the lives of many of our constituents.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller). The four of us share some of the most outstanding countryside in the nation, which just happens to fall within the curtilages of our constituencies. Mine abuts those of my hon. Friends, and I well understand the vigour with which they have expressed their views: people feel strongly about these issues.
The development of renewable energy forms a central part of the Government's commitment to the principle of sustainable development. Our policy is to stimulate the development of new and renewable energy technologies, but only where they have prospects of making an economic

contribution to our energy supplies, and where they do not make an unacceptable impact on the environment. In the case of wind, this means that wind farms must not be allowed to make an unacceptable intrusion on to sensitive and treasured landscapes.
I think few would disagree with the principle behind the Government's energy policy—that the promotion of diverse, secure and sustainable energy supplies at competitive prices is absolutely necessary for a strong and viable economy. A key part of the Government's policy seeks to reduce the emission of harmful pollutants, and wind obviously has a role to play in this.
Renewable energy is currently supplying about 2 per cent. of United Kingdom energy, mainly from hydroelectricity in Scotland. In its report to the President of the Board of Trade, the Renewable Energy Advisory Group concluded that, by 2025, that figure could rise to between 5 and 20 per cent. The actual contribution will depend upon the extent to which the different renewable technologies can be made competitive and gain public acceptance. As some of the points made by my hon. Friends demonstrate, public acceptance is very important, especially in relation to the environmental impact on wind farms.
My hon. Friends raised a number of points that I consider more relevant to the duties of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley rightly pointed out, our hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) has some comments to make; I will ensure that those comments are brought to the attention of both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose judicial planning role is relevant.
We have repeatedly stated and reaffirmed our intention to work towards a figure of 1,500 MW of renewable electricity generating capacity in the United Kingdom by the year 2000. The principal instrument for implementing this intention is the making of orders under the non-fossil fuel obligation, and the parallel arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The so-called "NFFO" is proving to be a considerable success and one of which we are rightly proud. Already, over 250 MW of declared net capacity are operational, of which nearly 60 MW are wind. In most cases, the planning permission for these projects has been granted locally.
I am very encouraged by what has been achieved so far. It does credit to both the foresight of the Government in giving this opportunity to the industry, and the skill and enterprise of the many pioneering companies and organisations behind the projects. In July last year my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy announced a third order, which is expected to be for between 300 and 400 MW, depending on the quality and cost of the prroposals received.
There has been a very encouraging response to the inivitation to register interest in the current "NFFO round", with a large number of applicants in all the technologies, including wind. But the interest of developers and the keenness of their bids are not the only factors that will decide the prospects for wind energy. Progress will crucially depend on developers finding acceptable sites and then gaining planning consent for them. The holding of an NFFO contract does not confer any special presumption in favour of gaining this consent.
I should say a few words in reply to some points concerning the planning system. Renewable energies differ


from the more established forms of generation in terms of land use and other material planning considerations. Recognising this, we have issued specific planning guidance on renewable energy—PPG 22'. This reiterates the fundamental principles of planning and deals with particular issues raised by the renewables.
It states that planning decisions have to reconcile the interests of development with the importance of conserving the environment—the issue at the heart of sustainable development. In relation to energy, it states that the Government's general aim is to ensure that society's needs for energy are met in a way that is compatible with the need to protect the environment, both global and local.
We have said that planning authorities must weigh carefully the Government's policies for developing renewable energy sources with those for protecting the environment. The guidance states that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the structure plans of the county council or the strategic planning authority and the local plans of the district council—plans that are required to include policies for conserving wildlife and the natural beauty and amenity of the land. PPG requires that they also now take account of the Government's policy on renewable energy.

Sir Donald Thompson: My hon. Friend has just catalogued the matters of which the local authorities must take note. Were Ito cross-examine him now, he would tell me that these were matters for the Department of the Environment rather than for his Department. The Department of the Environment would tell me that they were in a quasi-judicial category. My hon. Friend's Department and the Department of the Environment should meet urgently—and certainly before the submission of any plans in the next round—so that the guidance may be brought up to date.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment. On these matters, I am always willing to take note of his advice. If he feels that there is a need for contact between the relevant Ministers in the two Departments there will certainly be such contact. We know that, otherwise, my hon. Friend will find many ways of bringing up the subject again.
I genuinely believe that planning is done best at local level. In particular, it would be quite wrong for central

Government to decide precisely where wind farms should or should not be built or to direct developers to, or away from, particular areas, such as the Pennines. My hon. Friend would hardly want us to do that. All proposals must be treated on their merits.
Nor would it be right for me to comment on particular proposals or decisions made at local level. Where there are issues of wider than local importance they will, of course, be referred to the Secretary of State, but this will be the exception rather than the rule. We all know how controversial all kinds of planning applications can be, and we are aware of the judicial role of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
On the environmental impact of wind energy, the first thing to note is that wind farms produce none of the greenhouse gases or waste products that threaten sustainable development. This is probably the main justification for promoting their development. However, all forms of energy generation have their impacts, and wind is no exception. Most concern is expressed about noise and—a matter to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention—visual impact.
Well designed wind turbines are generally quiet in operation and, with careful siting, should not be a nuisance. However, rural background noise can be extremely low and, in some sheltered locations, may remain low, even as the wind picks up. So the siting of wind farms requires careful consideration. PPG gives specific guidance on the technical issues involved, and my Department has set up a working group with developers and planners to consider what lessons might be learned from the actual operating experience now being accumulated.
Of course, wind farms have to be in exposed locations to catch the wind, so it is inevitable that they will be seen. They therefore need to be sited sensitively and in sympathy with local features. Whilst objective measures of visual intrusion exist, this remains a subjective issue with which the planning authorities have to deal. Strong feelings can be expressed for or against any particular development.

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.